Cases

274 B.R. 224 (2002) In re David Leigh POTTER, Debtor. No. 01-12461-SSM. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. February 27, 2002. *225 John P. Cummins, III, Surovell, Jackson, Colten & Dugan, P.C., Fairfax, VA, for the debtor. James W. Reynolds, Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C., Fairfax, VA, for

973 A.2d 566 (2009) James P. VALKOUN v. Kimberly M. FRIZZLE. Nos. 2007-202-Appeal, 2008-207-Appeal. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. July 1, 2009. *568 David E. Revens, Esq., Warwick, for Plaintiff. Russell Bramley, Esq., Warwick, for Defendant. Present: GOLDBERG, Acting C.J., SUTTELL, ROBINSON, JJ., and WILLIAMS, C.J

[Cite as Gasper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2019-Ohio-1150.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) LINDA L. GASPER C.A. No. 17CA0091-M Appellant v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERE

316 Ga. 383 FINAL COPY S23A0017, S23X0018. RAFFENSPERGER v. JACKSON et al.; and vice versa. BOGGS, Chief Justice. In 2018, Mary Jackson and a nonprofit organization, Reaching Our Sisters Everywhere, Inc. (“ROSE”), filed a complaint against the Secretary of State (“the Secretary”),1 challenging the constitutionality of the Georgia Lactation Consultant Practice Act (“the Act”), OCGA §§ 43-22A-1 to 43-22A-13. Under the Act, the S

Opinion HUFFMAN, J. Petitioner Seahaus La Jolla Owners Association (Association) is the plaintiff in a construction defect action alleging water and other damage to the common areas of a common interest development. The Association sued the developers and builders of the complex, La Jolla View Ltd., LLC, and Webcor Construction L.P. (Defendants), who, among

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Elizabeth T. Clement Brian K. Zahra

949 F.Supp. 979 (1996) Jonathan HAGUE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, Hudson River Local No. 18 and Finch, Pruyn and Company, Inc., Defendants. No. 96-CV-463. United States District Court, N.D. New York. December 28, 1996. *980 Law Office of William E. Montgomery, III, William E. Montgomery, III, Glens Fal

5 F.3d 51 24 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,036 TRANSTECH INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation;Kin-Buc, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation; andFilcrest Realty, Inc., a New Jersey Corporationv.A & Z SEPTIC CLEAN; AAA Tank; A Alfante; ABM DisposalService; AM Environmental; A.E. Stanley ManufacturingCompany; Absolute Fire Protection, Inc.; Accurate Forming;Active Oil Service; Adchem Corp.; Adro

104 Ga. App. 264 (1961) 121 S.E.2d 331 WOLFE v. CITY OF ALBANY. 38906. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided July 14, 1961. Rehearing Denied July 28, 1961. *266 Adair, Goldthwaite & Stanford, J. R. Goldthwaite, Jr., for plaintiff in error. H. Grady Rawls, contra.

OPINION OF THE COURT WEIS, Circuit Judge. In this case brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the district court rejected appellants’ contention that, having entered into a settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency, they were relieved of responsibility for cleanup expenses incurred by the owners of a landfill. 798 F.Supp. 1079. We conclu

Ervin, J. Chapter 92 of the General Statutes had its origin in Chapter 155 of the Public Laws of 1935, and was enacted to control or regulate the practice of photography, which is defined to be “the profession or occupation of taking or producing photographs or any part thereof for hire.” G.S. 92-1. It establishes a State Board of Photographic Examiners consisting of five members designated by the Governor, “all of whom shall be

Citing: Scheytt v. Gallatin Valley Milling Co., 54 Mont. 565,172 P. 321; Walters v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 47 Mont. 501, 46 L.R.A. (n.s.) 702, 133 P. 357; Green v. Bohm,65 Mont. 399, 211 P. 320; Sherris v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,55 Mont.

STACY, C. J., dissenting. WINBORNE, J., concurs in dissent. The defendant was charged with violating Chapter 92 of the General Statutes by engaging in the practice of photography for compensation without being licensed so to do by the State Board of Photographic Examiners. The jury returned a special verdict in which it found, in substance, that on 25 June, 1948, in Raleigh, North Carolina, a city having a population in excess of twenty-five hundred, the defendant took and produ

On March 17, 1910, Chauncey A. Owen, for himself, and Chauncey A. Owen and Frank A. Gillespie, as resident taxpayers of the city of Tulsa, for themselves and all other residents of the city of Tulsa similarly situated, plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, sued the city of Tulsa, a city of the first class, John O. Mitchell, mayor, and the commissioners of said city, in the district court of Tulsa county. The amended petition substantially states that said Owen was, on August 18, 1909, the ow

Mary Read Clarke engaged the services of her solicitor *Page 489 to prepare a deed of trust. After receiving her instructions, the solicitor prepared the document and took it to her residence for execution. In the form in which it was drawn the grantor assigned to designated trustees certain specified personal property to be converted, and the proceeds invested so that the net income would be paid to the settlor for life, and then, accounting from her dea

Cooper, J., delivered the opinion of the court. Bill by a mortgagee to remove a cloud from the title of the mortgaged land by a judgment lien claimed by the defendant. The chancellor granted the relief sought, and the Referees have reported in favor of affirmance. The exceptions open the whole case. On October 25, 1876, D. M. Perkins conveyed the land in controversy, with other property to

In order to open a way, so as to get a complete view of the main question, it may be necessary to consider, first, whether judgments bind real property or not; and if they do in ordinary cases, secondly, to what extent; thirdly, whether they will bind lands within the Indian boundary. 1st. The cases in Haywood, 94, 95, show that judgments bind real property against the alienations of the owner, but not as against executions.1 The authority of

254 U.S. 443 (1921) DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS COMPANY v. DEERING ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS BUSINESS AGENTS OF DISTRICT NO. 15 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, ET AL. No. 45. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 22, 1920. Decided January 3, 1921. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge (after stating tlie facts as above). I am unable to concur with my Associates in the conclusion at which they have arrived, and which will appear in the opinion of Judge HOUGH, which follows. I shall, however, state the facts involved and my opinion as to the law applicable to the facts as I understand them. '¡'he complainant is a manufacturer of printing presses. It employs 250 machinists

Parker C. J. This bill seeks to set aside a settlement of accounts and contract made between the defendant and the administrators of Tuthill Hubbart, in the year 1808, the subject of which was an insurance account subsisting between Hubbart and the defendant for several years, and not adjusted in the lifetime of Hubbart. The defendant was an insurance-broker from the year 1785 to the year 1803, keeping an office in which Hubbart