Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Maureen O'Connor”
Frieda Aaron v. Maureen O'Connorpublic domain
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. *1013 A large group of plaintiffs brought medical malpractice claims in Ohio state court against a doctor who operated on them and against several hospitals where he worked. The plaintiffs allege that the judge presiding over their case, Judge Mark R. Sc
Colleen O'Toole v. Maureen O'Connorpublic domain
OPINION CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, Friends to Elect Colleen M. O’Toole (Colleen M. O’Toole’s judicial campaign committee), appeals from the June 3, 2015 opinion and order of the district court denying its motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Rule 4.4(E) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 4.4(E) imposes a temporal rest
Pelmear v. O'Connorpublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
O'Toole v. O'Connorpublic domain
OPINION & ORDER JAMES L. GRAHAM, United States ' District Judge Under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, incumbent judges running for reelection can call themselves judges. Other sitting judges seeking election to a different bench cannot. Since this is an unconstitutional restraint on free speech, the Court will grant summary judgment to Plaintiffs. This matter is béfore the Court on
O'Connor v. O'Connorpublic domain
*704In February 2009 the plaintiff retained the nonpartyappellant, Sallah Law Firm, EC. (hereinafter the law firm), to represent her in this divorce action. On March 1, 2010, the plaintiff discharged the law firm during the trial on financial issues. On April 27, 2010, the law firm made the instant motion for an award of an attorney’s fee to be paid by the defendant. The law firm made the instant m
Binkley v. O'Connorpublic domain
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Maureen *835O’Connor, an Assistant District Attorney in the office of Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York County, to produce, among other documents, copies of an arrest warrant and search warrants in connection with an action entitled People v Binkley in the Supreme Court, N
O'Connor v. Rootpublic domain
—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment based upon defendants’ failure to comply with the parties’ agreed-upon discovery schedule. That “harsh remedy * * * is generally not warranted ‘absent a showing that the noncomplying party’s conduct was willful or contumacious’ ” (Gaylord Bros. v RND Co., 134 AD2d 848, quoting Sawh v Bridges, 120 AD2d 74, 78, appe
J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. O'Connorpublic domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANN ALDRICH, District Judge. This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the current version of Ohio Administrative Code 4301:1-1-52 (“Rule 52”) under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 11 of the Ohio Constitution. On December 28, 1999, this Court preliminarily enjoined the defendants from enforcing certain sections of Rule
Carruthers v. O'Connorpublic domain
On March 22, 1995, Mary Alice Carruthers, then employed with the Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency ("CSEA") in a position classified as Clerical Supervisor, was furnished with a letter from the new Prosecuting Attorney for Summit County, Maureen O'Connor, notifying Carruthers that as of 4:45 p.m. that day, she was terminated. The prosecuting attorney served as the appointing authority for CSEA. Carruthers was terminated pursuant to a claim that she was in the unclassified service
J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. O'Connorpublic domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALDRICH, District Judge. The plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of the current version of Ohio Administrative Code 4301:1-1-52 (“Rule 52”). After a hearing, this Court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting the defendants from enforcing Rule 52 against the plaintiffs. The TRO was extended for an additional ten days; thereafter, the
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REBECCA F. DOHERTY, District Judge. Appellant/Movant, Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”), brings this appeal1 from an Order entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana, denying Admiral’s Motion for Summary Judgment2, on January 31, 2012. The Order was filed in an adv
People v. Elizabeth P.public domain
OPINION OF THE COURT Juan M. Merchan, J. By notice of motion dated August 12, 2011, Mary Beth Feerick, Esq., of counsel to Mental Hygiene Legal Service (hereinafter MHLS), moves on behalf of the defendant to preclude the New York County District Attorney’s Office from participating in defendant’s upcoming Jackson hearing. (Jackson v Indiana, 406 US 715 [1972].) A Jack
In re Estate of O'Connorpublic domain
Millard L. Midonick, S. This motion is made on behalf of the executors to strike an infant party and to vacate the appointment of a guardian ad litem representing such infant in a proceeding to construe the testator’s will. Since the infant was *491named as an interested party in the petition and was served with citation, it was the obligation of the court to provide the
State ex rel. Savage v. O'Connorpublic domain
In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss of Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, motion to dismiss of Maureen O’Connor, Lieutenant Governor and Director of the Department of Public Safety, motion to dismiss of Jim Petro, Auditor of State, request for oral argument on motions to dismiss, motion for awarding damages or court costs to relator as prevailing party, motion for joinder of Governor Bob Taft et al. as respondents under paragraph 5 of the complaint, motion
O'Connor v. Tofanypublic domain
George Beisheim, Jr., J. This is an article 78 proceeding in which petitioner seeks to annul the revocation, after hearing, of her motor vehicle operator’s license for failure to submit to a chemical test for intoxication (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1194). On October 4,1971, after petitioner was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated, she refused to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. Prior
O'Connor v. Miroslawpublic domain
VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge. Katherine O’Connor appeals the judgment of the trial court entering a dissolution decree. In several points on appeal, she challenges the court’s determinations regarding child custody and property division issues. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions. FACTS Katheri
Order GRAY H. MILLER, District Judge. Pending before the court is (1) a motion to dismiss defendant Survival Systems International, Inc.’s (“SSI”) counterclaims filed by plaintiff Diamond Offshore Company (“Diamond”) (Dkt.47); and (2) a motion for summary judgment filed by SSI (Dkt.58). Having considered the motions, responses, replies, and applicable law, the court is of the opinion that Diamond’s motion to
*392MEMORANDUM RULING ROBERT SUMMERHAYS, Bankruptcy Judge. In the present adversary proceeding, Thomas R. Willson, the duly-appointed Chapter 7 Trustee (the “Trustee”) of Central Louisiana Grain Cooperative, Inc. (the “Debtor”), asserts claims against ten (10) former members of the Debtor’s board of directors. The Trustee’s original complaint for dama
People v. Francis S.public domain
*535OPINION OF THE COURT Robert M. Stolz, J. The long history of this case has been recounted at length by several courts (see e.g. Matter of Francis S., 206 AD2d 4 [1st Dept 1994]; Francis S. v Stone, 221 F3d 100 [2d Cir 2000]), and will be summarized briefly herein. On October 22, 1983, defendant was arrested in Upper Manhattan and
Baker v. Ohiopublic domain
ORDER Kathy Baker, an Ohio resident proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment, after a jury’s verdict, dismissing her employment discrimination action filed under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).