Cases

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 2, 2003 Session MARK EDWARD IGOU v. DINAH CAROL IGOU Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 02-0814 Frank W. Brown, III, Chancellor FILED FEBRUARY 25, 2004 No. E2003-00253-COA-R3-CV Mark Edward Igou (“Husband”) sued

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: This appeal brings to us three of four consolidated actions arising from a failed relationship formed to build and manage a hospital and medical office building in Kenner, Louisiana, the latest round in the parties’ protracted litigation. Following a bench trial of the consolidated cases, the district court overturned a judicial sale of the hospital, reinstated vari

¶1 Virgil Montgomery challenges both his conviction for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and his standard range, 51-month sentence. Among other arguments, Montgomery asserts his trial was tainted by improper opinion testimony, an improper missing witness instruction, and improper argument about missing potential defense witnesses. We agree with Montgomery that the State’s opinion testimony was impro

183 P.3d 267 (2008) STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Virgil R. MONTGOMERY, Petitioner. No. 79564-9. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued January 17, 2008. Decided May 15, 2008. *270 Steven J. Tucker, Attorney at Law, Mark Erik Lindsey, Spokane County Prosecuting Attorneys, Spokane, WA, for Respondent.<

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 18-2885 & 19-3290 CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the Un

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 18-2885 & 19-3290 CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the Un

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 18-2885 & 19-3290 CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United S

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 18-2885 & 19-3290 CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United S

Opinion GEORGE, C. J. C. J. When an appellate court considers a petition for a writ of mandate or prohibition, it is authorized in limited circumstances to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance, without having issued an alternative writ or order to show cause. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1088, 1105; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223 [23 Cal.Rptr.2d 397, 859 P.2d

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: This appeal brings to us three of four consolidated actions arising from a failed relationship formed to build and manage a hospital and medical office building in Kenner, Louisiana, the latest round in the parties’ protracted litigation. Following a bench trial of the consolidated cases, the district court over

OPINION & ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge On April 1, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Chuan Wang (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against Samuel J. Palmisano (“Palmisa-no”), Martin Schroeter (“Schroeter”), Mark Loughridge (“Loughridge”), and J. Randall MacDonald (“MacDonald”) (collectively “Defendants”), who at the relevant times were, respectively, the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman; t

*353HASELTON, P. J. Defendants Oregon Taxpayers United Political Action Committee (OTU-PAC) and Oregon Taxpayers United Education Foundation (OTU-EF) appeal a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Oregon Education Association (OEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and intervenor State of Oregon in this action pursuant

MEMORANDUM, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER John J. McConnell, Jr., United States District Judge. Bricks and mortar of a temple, and silver and gold of religious ornaments, may appear to be at the center of the dispute between the two parties in this case, but such a conclusion would be myopic. The central issue here is the legacy of some of the earliest Jewish settlers in North America, wh

ORDER Re: BANKRUPTCY APPEALS FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Before the court are two related appeals from the bankruptcy matter, In re Flashcom, Inc., (bankruptcy court Case No. 8:00-bk-19215 RK, Adversary No. 8:02-ap-1620 RK; bankruptcy court Case No. 2:12-bk-16351 RK, Adversary No. 2:12-ap-1339 RK). In the first case, Flashcom, Inc.’s (“Flashcom”

*765Opinion CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. A jury found defendant John Alexander Riccardi guilty of the first degree murders of Constance (Connie) Navarro and Susan (Sue) Jory by use of a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a).)1 The jury also found true the special circumstance allegations of multiple murder (§ 19

958 F.Supp. 1026 (1997) CITY OF ROME, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard A. GLANTON, et al., Defendants v. Francesco RUTELLI, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Civil Action No. 96-5284. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. April 15, 1997. *1027 *1028

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 425A21-3 Filed 2 April 2026 HOKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., plaintiffs and CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, plaintiff-intervenor and RAFAEL PENN, et al., plaintiff-intervenors v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and the STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, defendants and CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, realigned defendant and PHILI

675 S.W.2d 881 (1984) TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, a corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CONSTRUCTION ESCROW SERVICE, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 47148. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four. June 29, 1984. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied August 28, 1984. Application to Transfer Deni

444 B.R. 51 (2010) In re BROADSTRIPE, LLC, et al., Debtors. Official Unsecured Creditors' Committee of Broadstripe, LLC, on behalf of the estate of Broadstripe, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Highland Capital Management, L.P., et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 09-10006 (CSS). Adversary No. 09-50966. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware. September 2, 2010.