Cases

382 F.3d 1220 Misty KINGSLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Ramon De Armas, individually, E. Valenzuela, individually, J. Balikes, individually, Defendants-Appellees. No. 03-13331. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. August 31, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Jeffrey A. Nor

WILSON, Circuit Judge: We vacate and withdraw our previous opinion dated May 11, 2004, 369 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir.2004), and substitute the following opinion. *1223 Appellant Misty Kingsland appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees,

Matter of Tara DD. v Seth CC. (2023 NY Slip Op 01114) Matter of Tara DD. v Seth CC. 2023 NY Slip Op 01114 Decided on March 2, 2023 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary L

Matter of Tara DD. v Seth CC. (2023 NY Slip Op 01114) Matter of Tara DD. v Seth CC. 2023 NY Slip Op 01114 Decided on March 2, 2023 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary L

Matter of Sierra KK. v Brett LL. 2026 NY Slip Op 02708 April 30, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Sierra KK., Appellant, v Brett LL., Respondent. Decided and Entered:Ap

MEMORANDUM OPINION EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge. This case is before the Court on defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Upon consideration of the motion, the response and reply thereto, the entire record, and for the reasons explained below, defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

WILSON, Circuit Judge: Appellant Misty Kingsland appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees, based on her § 1983 claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution.1 For the rea*1213sons that follow, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consisten

Docket No. 102430. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS SUZANNE BAGENT, Appellee, v. BLESSING CARE CORPORATION, d/b/a Illini Community Hospital, et al., Appellants. Opinion filed January 19, 2007. JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Fitzgerald, Kilbride, Garman, Karmeier, and Bur

689 F.Supp.2d 1027 (2010) Kathleen PAINE, as Guardian of the Estate of Christina Rose Eilman, a Disabled Person, Plaintiff, v. Officer Jeffrey JOHNSON, Officer Richard Cason, Officer Rosendo Moreno, Lieutenant Carson Earnest, Sergeant David Berglind, Detention Aide Sharon Stokes, Officer Teresa Williams, Detention Aide Cynthia Hudson, Detention Aide Catonia Quinn, Officer Deborah Mabery, Officer Pamela Smith, Officer Benita Miller, Officer Paulin

862 N.E.2d 985 (2007) 224 Ill.2d 154 308 Ill.Dec. 782 Suzanne BAGENT, Appellee, v. BLESSING CARE CORPORATION, d/b/a Illini Community Hospital, et al., Appellants. No. 102430. Supreme Court of Illinois. January 19, 2007. *987 Michael F. Dahlen, Kara L. Jones, of Feirich/Mager/Green/R

(2008) Bryan M. GIL and Maureen B. Gil, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., Defendants. No. CV 06-1683(LDW)(ARL). United States District Court, E.D. New York. November 6, 2008. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WEXLER, District Judge. Plaintiffs Bryan Gil ("Gil") and Maureen Gil bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Coun

Evans, Judge, dissenting. Plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment against a railroad because of a collision at a crossing on a foggy morning before daylight; the railroad’s motion for new trial was overruled and on appeal to this court the majority take the following action: 1. Affirms as to enumerations of error numbers 1 and 2. I concur. The majority opinion holds that defendant waived its

[Cite as 07/01/2002 Case Announcements, 2002-Ohio-3343.] The Supreme Court of Ohio CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS July 1, 2002 DISCIPLINARY CASES 2001-0412. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cleary. Patricia A. Cleary is reinstated to the practice of law. MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS 2002-0902. Butcher v. Lewis. Stark App. No. 2001CA00219, 2002-Ohi

Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr

49 F.Supp. 625 (1943) HAMPTON v. NORTH CAROLINA PULP CO. District Court, E. D. North Carolina, Washington Division. February 20, 1943. Ehringhaus & Ehringhaus, of Raleigh, N. C., and Carl Bailey, of Plymouth, N. C., for plaintiff. Norman & Rodman, of Plymouth, N. C., and Lecher, Michael, Whyte & Spohn, and Thomas Stone, all of Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant. <

I dissent from the opinion of Mr. Justice Watts in this case, affirming the judgment below, and think that it should be reversed, for the reasons which follow. My objections to the validity of the judgment are hereinafter set forth in italics under separate subdivisions. Before entering upon a discussion of these several objections, it appears proper to make the following: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is an action for $50,000 damages on accou

Mr. Justice Cothran (dissenting) : I dissent from the opinion of Mr. Justice Watts in this case, affirming the judgment below, and think that it should be reversed, for the reasons which follow. My objections to the validity of the judgment are hereinafter set forth in italics under separate subdivisions. Before entering upon'a discussion of these several objections, it appears proper to make the following:

ACCEPTED 04-15-00469-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/3

449 F.Supp.2d 992 (2006) Barbara SCHWAB et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Ligget Group, Inc., American Tobacco Co., Altria Group, Inc., British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd., Defendants. No. 04-CV-1945(JBW). United States District Court