Cases

389 F.Supp.2d 143 (2005) Miriam RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. Anabelle RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.03-1284 HL. United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. March 31, 2005. Luis P. Costas-Elena, Brown & Ubarri, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff. Carlos Del-Valle-Cruz, Department of Justice, Eduardo A. Vera-Ramirez, Landron & Vera LLP, San Juan, PR, Ivet

OPINION GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice. Appellant, Charlotte Washburn Omo-hundro (Omohundro), appeals the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Ap-pellee, Amelinda Crispina Ramirez-Justus (Amelinda), individually, and as Trustee of the Miriam N. Washburn Revocable Living Trust. We affirm. BACKGROUND

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: This appeal concerns the admissibility of polygraph evidence in a pretrial hearing to suppress forty-four kilograms of cocaine recovered after an airport interdiction and search of the defendants’ luggage. The district court refused to consider polygraph evidence offered by the defendants to corroborate their version of events preceding the arrest. Our pre

SELYA, Circuit Judge. Following her failed efforts to force an agency of the Puerto Rican government to display the American flag in its central office, plaintiff-appellant Miriam J. Ramirez found herself on the wrong end of criminal charges brought pursuant to the Riot Act, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 33, § 4522. Claiming that the Riot Act impermissibly infringed her First Amendment ri

400 F.Supp.2d 410 (2005) Mario Miguel RAMIREZ ZAYAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Commonwealth of PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 02-2418 (SEC/GAG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. November 30, 2005. *411 Nora Vargas-Acosta, Charles S. Hey-Maestre, De Jesus, Hey & Vargas Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaint

OPINION AND ORDER CASELLAS, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket # 27). Said motion remains unopposed. Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of this Court’s Opinion and Order dismissing their causes of action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), et seq. an

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0261p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ MIRIAM PATRICIA VARGAS-RODRIGUEZ, │

Opinion issued July 16, 2024 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00647-CV ——————————— JAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Appellant V. PEDRO APARICIO BARAJAS, MARIA FIGUEROA, ISRAEL BRION

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 13-21-00137-CV MIRIAM ARACELY HERNANDEZ v. VELMEJ INVESTMENTS, LLC On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CL-19-2933-D JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COU

People v Ramirez (2023 NY Slip Op 01696) People v Ramirez 2023 NY Slip Op 01696 Decided on March 29, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated June 29, 1990, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed. On August 24, 1985, the plaintiffs L

850 F.2d 10 47 Ed. Law Rep. 468 Miriam ESTRADA-IZQUIERDO, Plaintiff, Appellee,v.Awilda APONTE-ROQUE, etc., Defendant, Appellant. No. 87-1567. United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit. Heard Dec. 7, 1987.Decided June 28, 1988. Carlos Del Valle with whom Marcos A. Ramirez Iri

EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO Ángel Manuel Torres Cubano Peticionario Certiorari v. 2026 TSPR 64 Sucesión de Miriam Magdalena 218 DPR ___ Domenech Rosado, compuesta por Ismael H. Herrero Domenech Recurridos Número del Caso: CC-2025-0226 Fecha: 11 de junio de 2026 Tribunal de Apelaciones: Panel Especial Representante legal de la

OPINION LAURA CARTER HIGLEY, Justice. Appellant, Eduardo Cruz Ramirez, was charged by information with violation of a protective order. Appellant pleaded not guilty. A jury found him guilty, and the trial court assessed a punishment of 300 days in jail. The trial court also assessed court costs at $402. In two issues, appellant argues the evidence is ins

Opinion RAMIREZ P. J. Following a foreclosure proceeding which resulted in a deficiency, plaintiff Gramercy Investment Trust (Gramercy) sued to recover the unpaid balance of a real estate mortgage loan, naming as defendants Lakemont Homes Nevada, Inc., and Lakemont Communities Nevada, LLC (collectively referred to as Lakemont), who were the guarantors of the loan. Gramercy made a motion for summary judgment for

268 F.Supp.2d 484 (2003) Elizabeth RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. No. CIV.A. 02-2696. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. June 3, 2003. *485 Thomas D. Sutton, Leventhal & Sutton, Langhorne, PA, for Elizabeth Ramirez, Plaintiff. Nicholas Cer

OPINION AND ORDER GUSTAVO A. GELPÍ, District Judge. Presently before the court is Defendant Dr. Omar Nieves’ (hereinafter “Defendant Nieves” or “Dr. Nieves”) Motion in Limine to exclude Opinions of Dr. Carl Adams against him at Docket No. 253. After reviewing the parties’ submissions and the pertinent law, the court hereby DENIES Defendant Nieves’ Motion in Limine (Docket No. 253).

Enrique S. Lamoutte, United States Bankruptcy Judge This case is before the court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 41) filed by the Plaintiffs, David N. Vargas Moya and Sandra Ramirez Pérez ("Plaintiffs" or "Debtors"); the Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof filed by the Administración Sistemas de Retiro de los Empleados de Gobierno y la Judi

OPINION AND ORDER GUSTAVO A. GELPÍ, District Judge. Defendant Dr. Omar Nieves (“Dr. Nieves”), requested summary judgment and sought the dismissal of the Complaint against him based on various theories, which have already been discussed, all of which relate to the medular controversy as identified in the court’s previous Opinion and Order at Docket No. 267: “if a medical malpractice claim is sup