Cases

Appellant, Daniel F. McSweeney, appeals from a decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, sustaining the motion for relief from judgment of appellee, Daphne L. McSweeney, and vacating the parties' decree of dissolution. Appellant presents the following assignments of error: First Assignment of Error "The trial court erred, as a matter of law, in determining that it was proper for the appellee to amend her rule 60(B) motion because a mo

*244MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PLATT, District Judge. Before the Court is defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on plaintiffs’ complaint. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED as to plaintiffs’ claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and plaintiffs’ Title IX claim. Plaint

GRIMM, Presiding Judge. This is a wrongful-death case. Defendant West County Motor Company operates a business on both sides of a public street. An automobile struck decedent as he crossed the street, going from one part of the business to another. Plaintiffs sued, claiming defendant failed “to warn of the danger or to modify the area,” or to remedy the condition. The trial court sustained defendant’s summary judgment motion

Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed for the reason that the judgment was based upon a nonfederal ground adequate to support it. Enterprise Irrigation Dist. v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157; Utley v. St. Petersburg, 292 U. S. 106, 111-112.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Atlantic County Circuit, entered in its favor, on motion of the defendant-respondent on the pleadings. Plaintiff moved to strike defendant's answer, which motion *Page 300 was denied. 16 N.J. Mis. R. 193. Thereupon, defendant moved for judgment, which was granted. The essential facts are not in dispute. The controversy arises out of the re-organization of the defendant-respondent bank

Dondero, J. Objector Angela Post appeals from the probate court's order confirming title to the proceeds of decedent Jerome Norman Post's life insurance policy to petitioners Kenneth Post and Eric Post and directing the insurance company to pay the policy's death benefit to them, even though she is named as the policy's primary beneficiary. Because the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeds of the life in

DECISION David and Linda Gordon move this Court to intervene, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 24(a), in the zoning appeal, OSA, LP v.Elizabeth Minifie et al., NC-2007-0629. The Gordons intend to support the decision rendered by the City Newport Zoning Board of Review, but argue that the Board does not adequately represent their interests, as abutters to the property in question, in the pending appeal. After

DECISION Before the Court is the appeal of OSA, LP, and Historic Resorts, Inc. (collectively the "Appellants") from a decision of the Zoning Board of Review of the City of Newport ("Zoning Board" or "Board" or "Appellees"). The Board's decision affirmed City's Zoning Officer Guy Weston's ("Weston") denial of Appellants' application for a building permit to replace the tent-like covering of an outdoor cooking area with a

DECISION In these consolidated cases, W. Bart Lloyd ("Mr. Lloyd") appeals from a September 1, 2006 decision of the Zoning Board of Review of the City of Newport ("Zoning Board" or "Board"), denying his application for a special use permit, and Mr. Lloyd and Elizabeth Lloyd (collectively "Lloyds") appeal from a November 28, 2007 decision of the Zoning Board, granting a special use permit to Mark and Donna Bardorf (collect

DECISION Before this Court is an appeal from a decision ("Decision") of the Zoning Board of Review of the City of Newport ("Board or "Zoning Board"), which denied Dorothy Kostek ("Kostek") and Shannon Dunnigan ("Dunnigan") (collectively, "Appellants") a dimensional variance and/or special use permit for parking relief in connection with the alteration of a residential property to be used as a guesthouse. Appellants seek

KELLY, Circuit Judge. In 2014, hackers accessed customer financial information from hundreds of retail grocery stores operated by SuperValu, Inc., AB Acquisition, LLC, and New Albertsons, Inc. A group of customers sued the stores. We previously affirmed dismissal of all but one of the suit's named plaintiffs for lack of standing. See In re SuperValu, Inc. <

DECISION David and Linda Gordon move this Court to intervene, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 24(a), in the zoning appeal, OSA, LP v. ElizabethMinifie et al., NC-2007-0629. The Gordons intend to support the decision rendered by the City Newport Zoning Board of Review, but argue that the Board does not adequately represent their interests, as abutters to the property in question, in the pending appeal. After

MEMORANDUM OPINION CLAUDE M. HILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CASE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. *490Stephen Gass and David Fanning founded SD3, LLC and SawStop, LLC in August 2000. Both are attorneys. Mr. Fanning serves as a general counsel for SawStop. Dr. Gass began contacting saw man

ORDER (Mot Challenge Designation ECF Nos. 281/282) PEGGY A. LEEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Challenge Work Product Designation (ECF No. 281 filed under seal, and the redacted version (ECF No. 282) filed on the public record. The court has considered the motion, Zuffa’s Opposition (ECF Nos. 294/295), numerous related filings1

DECISION Before this Court is the appeal of Wendy Anolik (Anolik) from a decision of the Newport Zoning Board of Review (Decision and Board respectively). The Decision granted the application of the Congregation Jeshuat Israel (Congregation) for special use permits and dimensional variances. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45-24-69.

Schwartz v Schwartz (2020 NY Slip Op 05248) Schwartz v Schwartz 2020 NY Slip Op 05248 Decided on September 30, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judi

In a subrogation action to recover insurance benefits paid by the plaintiff to its insured for injury to property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated May 18, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In a subrogation action to recover insurance benefits paid by the plaintiff to its insured for injury to property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated May 18, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: David Demers is a tenured associate professor at Washington State University. He brought suit alleging that university administrators retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment for distributing a short pamphlet and drafts from an in-progress book. The district court granted summary judgment for the d

ORDER The opinion filed on September 4, 2013, and published at 729 F.3d 1011, is withdrawn and replaced by the attached opinion. With the filing of this new opinion, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge W. Fletcher has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc; and Judges Fisher and Quist so recommend. The full