Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BABCOCK, District Judge. This matter is before me on Defendant ProCollect, Inc.’s, Motion to Dismiss for *1104Failure to State a Claim, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc # 4]. Jurisdiction is proper under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). After considering the parties’ arguments, and for the reasons below

Fearing, C. J. ¶ 1 Are special glass locomotive windows, whose composition must meet federal railroad regulations, locomotive “operating mechanisms?” We ask this question in the context of RCW 81.60.080, a fallow statute that criminalizes sabotaging rolling stock. After declining to entertain Amanda Torres’ Fourth Amendment challenge to her arrest and confession, U.S. Const, amend.

Hon. David T. Thuma, United States Bankruptcy Judge Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's § 523(a)(2)(A) claim for failure to state a cause of action.1 Having reviewed the motion and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has stated a cause of action under § 523(a)(2)(A). The motion therefore will be denied. I. FACTS For t

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a jury verdict entered by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Appellant Maribel Laboy (“Laboy”) was found guilty of kidnapping and transportation in interstate commerce of a minor unlawfully seized and carried away in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201.

*437In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated March 10, 2005, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof

NO. 12-19-00155-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS MARY BETH SMITH, RIKKI § APPEAL FROM THE 124TH SANDVIK, TAMARA LITTLE AND ESTELA TORRES, APPELLANTS § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT V. ZEID WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, LTD.,

Per Curiam *561I. Introduction This case has its genesis in a hard-fought congressional redistricting battle waged in state and federal courts across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The various antecedent lawsuits engaged Republican members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Democratic elected and appointed officials of

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER Stephen M. McNamee, Senior United States District Judge This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Torres v. Goddard, 793 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir.2015). The Ninth Circuit remanded the issue of whether Defendants, although not entitled to absolute immunity, are entitled to qualified immunity for the service and execution of seizure for forfeiture warrant

BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant First Transit, Inc.'s Motion for New Trial and Remittitur, ECF No. [137] (the "Motion"). The Court has reviewed the Motion, all supporting and opposing submissions and exhibits, the record, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is denied.

MEMORANDUM ** Sergio Eloy Pantoja-Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 18-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Pantoja-Torres’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge. The jury found appellant, Mary Torres, guilty of four violations of the federal narcotic laws relating to marihuana. She was sentenced to imprisonment and now appeals from the judgment. James Sedillo, an employee of the New Mexico State Police, Narcotics Division, was the first w

MEMORANDUM *** Margarito Valero-Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 33-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Valero-Torres’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a mot

OPINION WECHSLER, Judge. {1} Defendant Hector Torres was sentenced in 1988 pursuant to a plea agreement for escape from the penitentiary and for his status as a habitual offender. The district court made several legal errors in ordering Defendant’s sentence that resulted in an unlawfully light term of imprisonment. The State did not discover the errors until 2006, at a t

Pennell, J. ¶1 Mario Torres was convicted of a witness tampering charge involving his minor son. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a five-year no-contact order between Mr. Torres and his son. Because the no-contact order was imposed without adequate consideration of Mr. Torres’s fundamental right to parent his son, we remand for reconsideration. FACTS </

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Ricardo Torres-Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 63-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Torres-Perez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relie

277 P.3d 641 (2012) 249 Or. App. 571 STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Respondent, v. Gilbert Andrew TORRES, aka Gilbert Torre, Defendant-Respondent Cross-Appellant. 090632436; A144812. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted September 14, 2011. Decided May 2, 2012. *642

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J), entered July 21, 2010, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court proper

Amended Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by NAKAYAMA, Acting C. J. I respectfully dissent from the holding that Hawai'i law applies to petitioner’s suppression motion. The rules and analysis of this court’s unanimous decision in State v. Bridges, 83 Hawai'i 187, 925 P.2d 357 (1996), should control the outcome of today’s case. I believe Bridges was properly de