Cases

2020 IL 125085 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket No. 125085) MATTHEW GORAL et al., Appellees, v. THOMAS J. DART et al., Appellants. Opinion filed October 22, 2020. JUSTICE NEVILLE delivered the judgment of the court, wit

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2108 TAPHIA WILLIAMS, et al., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THOMAS J. DART, Cook County Sheriff, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ______________

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2108 TAPHIA WILLIAMS, et al., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THOMAS J. DART, Cook County Sheriff, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ______________

488 F.Supp.2d 761 (2007) Esses MASON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated person, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS; Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County; Edwin Burnette, Public Defender of Cook County; The Hon. E. Kenneth Wright, Chief Judge of the Municipal Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Defendants. No. 06 C 3449. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2108 TAPHIA WILLIAMS, et al., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THOMAS J. DART, Cook County Sheriff, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ______________

827 F.Supp. 1296 (1993) Anthony DARBY and Deeva Darby, Plaintiffs, v. HEATHER RIDGE and Dart Properties, Inc., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 91-76896. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D. August 3, 1993. *1297 E. Michael Morris, Morris & Doherty, P.C., Birmingham, MI, for plaintiffs. James Anthony Siver, Kevin V

635 F.Supp.2d 798 (2009) Jaime HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. Cook County Sheriff Tom DART, et al., Defendants. No. 09 C 661. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 10, 2009. *803 Jaime Hernandez, Calumet City, IL, pro se. Russell J. Stewart, Attorney at Law, Park Ridge, IL, for Defendants. </

Opinion by Senior Justice, CHARLES S. RUSSELL. This appeal arises from a motion to suppress evidence obtained by police officers following the " Terry stop" of an automobile. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS The material facts are undisputed. At 2:30 p.m. on March 3, 2012, Officer Willie Richards of the Waverly Police Department was o

(2008) Sherry NICHOLSON, Plaintiff, v. DART CONTAINER CORPORATION, Company of Mississippi, LLC, Defendants. Civil Action No. 4:07CV74TSL-LRA. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division. September 4, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TOM S. LEE, District Judge. This cause is before the court on the motion of defen

OPINION TOM GRAY; Chief Justice. Mason appeals his convictions for capital murder in which the State did not seek the death penalty and for intentional serious bodily injury to a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03 (Vernon Supp.2006), *802§ 22.04(a)(1), (e) (Vernon Supp.2006). We affirm. In Mason’s one issue, he comp

626 P.2d 428 (1981) Paul E. MASON, and Masco, Inc., a Utah Corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendant and Respondent. No. 16947. Supreme Court of Utah. February 6, 1981. Scott Daniels, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellants. B.L. Dart, John D. Parker, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent. H

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS <

877 F.Supp. 896 (1995) Robert M. HAFT, Plaintiff, v. DART GROUP CORPORATION, Crown Books Corporation, and Trak Auto Corporation, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 93-384-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. February 22, 1995. *897 *898 Lawrence C. Ashby, and John S. Grimm, of Ashby & Gedd

SIMONS, Circuit Judge. The problem presented for solution by the appeal involves the interpretation of a written contract entered into by the parties to the present controversy, for the assignment of a patent application including the granting of an option to the purchaser for an exclusive license under other patents to be carved out of the parent application and to be made the subject of divisional applications. While no qu

1 Reported in 248 N.W. 706. Election contest, summary in procedure, under G. S. 1923 (1 Mason, 1927) § 570, wherein contestant challenges the election of contestee to the office of judge of probate of Meeker county. Decision below was for contestee. Contestant appeals from the judgment. The election was that of November 8, 1932. Contestant was then in office under appointme

MEMORANDUM & ORDER DEVITT, Chief District Judge. This is an action to set aside and annul an Order of the Interstate Commerce Commission denying plaintiff’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity under which it sought authorization to conduct motor common carrier operations from points in Illinois to points in seven North Central states. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C

OPINION MONTOYA, Justice. This case is before us on a writ of certiorari directed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals in Ortiz v. Mason, No. 2226 (Ct.App., filed April 6, 1976), which reversed a judgment issued by the District Court of Los Alamos County and remanded the same for entry of judgment and assessment of damages in favor of plaintiffs.

ST . PAUL, J. Plaintiff, a furnisher of materials, seeks to hold the surety-on a contractor's bond. The defense is that no sworn statement of the claim was filed with the owner, or recorded in the mortgage office, within forty five days after the completion of the building. The District Judge found as a fact (and his finding accords with the evidence) that the building was completed on June 26th, 1909.

356 Mich. 574 (1959) 97 N.W.2d 98 DART NATIONAL BANK v. MID-STATES CORPORATION. Docket No. 78, Calendar No. 47,652. Supreme Court of Michigan. Decided June 6, 1959. Sinas, Dramis, Brake & Werbelow (Lee C. Dramis, of counsel), for plaintiff. Harold J. Ashdown, for defendants. SMITH, J. The case bef

1 Reported in 27 N.W.2d 555. This came is here on reargument. Subsequent to the original argument and before any decision was made, there was a change in the personnel of the court. Thereafter and on April 26, 1946, the court ordered the parties involved to submit new briefs and invited a number of attorneys to file briefs asamici curiae. Plaintiff as administratrix of