Cases

In the Iowa Supreme Court No. 24–0027 Submitted November 13, 2024—Filed March 7, 2025 Marlene Banwart and Richard Banwart, Appellants, vs. Neurosurgery of North Iowa, P.C., David Beck, and Thomas Getta, Appellees. Appeal from the Iowa District C

Corrigan, J. *552 Defendant, Anthony Gilbert Delgado, killed two fellow inmates while serving a 25-year-to-life sentence in Corcoran State Prison. A jury convicted him of two counts of first degree murder, 1 with the special circums

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Greg White, United States Magistrate Judge Currently before the Court is Defendants Medina County, Medina County Commissioners, Michael Kovack and Joan Heller’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.1- (Doc. No. 42.) Plaintiff Annette Ehrlich filed a Brief in Opposition on August 10, 2015, to which Defendants replied. (Doc. Nos.46, 47.)

Opinion LIU, J. Defendant Bailey Lamar Jackson was convicted by a jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); all further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated), first degree burglary (§ 459), and first degree robbery (§§ 211, 215, subd. (a)) of Geraldine Myers. The jury found true the special circumstance

26 Cal.3d 233 (1980) 605 P.2d 830 162 Cal. Rptr. 1 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCISCO PALACIO CRUZ, Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. Crim. 19162. Supreme Court of California. January 24, 1980. *239 COUNSEL Sanford Jay Rosen, under appointment by the Supreme

OPINION JACOBSON, Judge. This appeal calls into question the type of damages recoverable for the removal of outdoor advertising signs and the proper methodology for ascertaining those damages under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4601, et seq. This action was instituted by the appellant, City of Scottsdale, a mu

THE COURT. When this case was in Department the opinion hereto attached was prepared by Mr. Commissioner Britt, and after further consideration we are satisfied with the conclusion therein reached. For the reasons given in that opinion the *479judgment is reversed, with directions to the court below to dismiss the proceeding: “The parties here

The petitioners are the owners of lands over which one of the branch ditches of respondent Natomas Water Company, known as the valley lateral, and which forms a part of an original system, is constructed, and each of said petitioners is a holder of a water-rate contract entered *Page 24 into by some of the petitioners in the year 1893 and by others in 1894, with the Natomas Vineyard Company, a corporation, predecessor in interest of said respondent. <

The respondent has petitioned for rehearing. The opinion given on appeal will be found above. The statement of the case or the authorities heretofore cited need not be repeated here. Counsel for petitioner admits the correctness of the general rules noted in that opinion as to necessary parties, but strenuously urges that the case at bar comes within the exceptions to the general rules, and as an exception he cites Story's Eq. Plead., sec 78, wherein the author says: "Hence it is a common rul