Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al, (the “Debtors,” or “Circuit City”) filed these bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).1 The Debtors’ bankruptcy cases were consolidated for joint administration pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Fed

447 B.R. 475 (2009) In re CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., et al., Debtors. No. 08-35653. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. February 12, 2009. Robin S. Abramowitz, Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville, NY, for *476 Bond Circuit VIII Delaware Business Trust. Angela Sheffler Abreu, McCarter

ACCEPTED 14-14-00345-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/27/2015 5:02:41 P

559 F.2d 31 181 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1203 UNITED STATES of Americav.Harry R. HALDEMAN, Appellant.UNITED STATES of Americav.John D. EHRLICHMAN, Appellant.UNITED STATES of Americav.John N. MITCHELL, Appellant.UNITED STATES of Americav.Harry R. HALDEMAN and John D. Ehrlichman, Appellants.Nos. 75-1381, 75-1382, 75-1384 and 76-1441.United States Court of Appe

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et al. v. CREG Westport, LLC, et al. No. 1063, September Term 2020. Opinion by Wells, J. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES When a legislature provides an administrative remedy as the exclusive or primary means by which an aggrieved party may challenge a government action, the doctrine of administrative exhaustion requires the aggrieved party exhaust the prescribed process of administrative remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the courts. ADM

SILER, Circuit Judge. Edward Lang, an Ohio prisoner under a death sentence, appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court granted Lang a Certificate of Appealability (CO

Young Lee, As Victim’s Representative v. State of Maryland, et al., No. 1291, September Term, 2022. Opinion by Graeff, J. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — VICTIMS’ RIGHTS — VACATUR OF CONVICTIONS — NOLLE PROSEQUI — MOOTNESS The State’s entry of a nolle prosequi did not render the Mr. Lee’s appeal moot under the circumstances of this case. Although the State’s Attorney generally has broad discretion, free from judicial control, to enter a nolle prosequi,

Adnan Syed v. Young Lee, as Victim’s Representative, et al., No. 7, September Term, 2023. Opinion by Biran, J. APPELLATE JURISDICTION – MOOTNESS – ENTRY OF NOLLE PROSEQUI AFTER VACATUR OF CONVICTION – The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the entry of a nolle prosequi (“nol pros”) by the State’s Attorney did not moot the appeal by a crime victim’s representative of an order vacating a defendant’s convictions under Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure (“CP”) § 8-301.1 (2018 Repl. Vol., 2023 Supp.

Adnan Syed v. Young Lee, as Victim’s Representative, et al., No. 7, September Term, 2023. Opinion by Biran, J. APPELLATE JURISDICTION – MOOTNESS – ENTRY OF NOLLE PROSEQUI AFTER VACATUR OF CONVICTION – The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the entry of a nolle prosequi (“nol pros”) by the State’s Attorney did not moot the appeal by a crime victim’s representative of an order vacating a defendant’s convictions under Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure (“CP”) § 8-301.1 (2018 Repl. Vol., 2023 Supp.

DAVIS, J. Appellant, William C. Bond, filed suit against appellees, Gerald A. Messerman and Sheppard Pratt Health System, Inc. (Sheppard Pratt) on February 4, 2003 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, alleging legal malpractice, negligent mis*97representation, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud, stemming from Messerman’s failure to expunge appellant’s

Filed 2/26/26 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TODD A. FISHER, Individually and as D083806 Successor in Interest, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021- v. 00044389-CU-MC-CTL) BRUCE B. FISHE

SUZANNE L. PORTER A.K.A. SUZANNE L. HOLMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RespondentPorter v. Comm'rNo. 13558-06United States Tax Court

DECISION The matter before the Court involves a motion to dismiss brought by the Chief Judge of the Family Court, the Family Court Administrators, and the Magistrates of the Family Court (collectively "Court Defendants") alleging lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Super. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs brought

Robinson v. UNUM Life Ins. CV-02-006-B 03/12/03 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Ralph Robinson v. Civil No. 02-6-B Opinion No. 2003 DNH 042 UNUM Life Insurance Company of America MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Ralph Robinson brings this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"

432 B.R. 583 (2010) In re ENDEAVOUR HIGHRISE, L.P., Debtor. Endeavour GP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Endeavour Highrise, L.P. et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 09-33151-H4-11. Adversary No. 09-03267. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. July 13, 2010. *593 Susan J. Taylor, Taylor Law Group, Houston, TX, for

MacKINNON, Circuit Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part): My views concur with those expressed in the majority opinion, in which I have participated, except with respect to the issues of pretrial publicity and the convictions on Count 2. PRETRIAL PUBLICITY If ever in the history of our country there was a criminal case which by l

ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 4/2/2015 10

Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register (2025 NY Slip Op 01717) Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register 2025 NY Slip Op 01717 Decided on March 20, 2025 Appellate Di

Bliss, J. This action was originally brought by Arthur Andrews, and on his death, his widow, as- administratrix of his *376estate, was substituted as plaintiff. There is little controversy as to the facts, either as pleaded or as testified to. The defendant is a corporation, organized and existing under the statutes of Iowa, and has been engaged in the work and activities

This action was originally brought by Arthur Andrews, and on his death, his widow, as administratrix of his *Page 376 estate, was substituted as plaintiff. There is little controversy as to the facts, either as pleaded or as testified to. The defendant is a corporation, organized and existing under the statutes of Iowa, and has been engaged in the work and activities usual to such associations. On December 31, 1935, the deceased, who was then employed by