Cases

The notice of appeal lists this as an appeal on questions of law and fact taken by defendant, appellant herein, from a judgment for plaintiff, appellee herein, in the sum of $12,500 damages and interest for breach of contract to purchase plaintiff's 25 shares of stock in defendant corporation at an agreed price of $500 per share. The case was tried by the court, the parties having waived a jury. However, it is not such a case as may be appealed on questions of law and fact. Section

Martin Cli. J., dissenting: Objections to the bill were raised before us, and appear to have been made at the hearing below, also, for want of proper parties as complainants, and as defendants. I regard with disfavor an objection dilatory in its nature, which is not raised preliminarily by demurrer to the bill, but is suggested after the cause is put at issue, and the parties (as in the present case) have been p

BILLINGS, Chief Judge. Plaintiff Sue Perry was denied relief by the Circuit Court of Jasper County in her multiple-count suit to set aside amendments to an inter vivos trust created by her aunt and to contest the will of her aunt which had been admitted for probate. In this appeal plaintiff has abandoned all of her claims except her challenge to the validity of the final amendment to the trust agreement. We affirm.

523 F.Supp. 918 (1981) Keith L. PRESCOTT, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America and Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, Defendants. No. Civil LV 80-143 RDF. United States District Court, D. Nevada. September 9, 1981. *919 *920

527 F.Supp. 476 (1981) Irene H. ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civ. No. C 79-0515. United States District Court, D. Utah, C. D. August 21, 1981. *477 *478 Dale Haralson, Haralson, Kinerk & Morey, Tucson, Ariz., Stewart L. Udall, Phoenix, Ariz., Wayne Owe

Sikora, J. A jury of the Superior Court convicted the defendant of kidnapping, G. L. c. 265, § 26; assault by means of a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, § 15B; assault and battery, G. L. c. 265, § 13A; and threats, G. L. c. 275, § 2. It acquitted him on the charges of rape and indecent assault and battery. The defendant alleges three errors on appeal: (1) the kidnapping charge lacked sufficient evidence to support the indictment

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Sanjeev Lath v. Civil No. 16-cv-534-LM Opinion No. 2017 DNH 057 Manchester Police Department; Oak Brook Condominium Owners’ Association; Cheryl Vallee; Perry Vallee; Patty Taylor; Christos Arthur Klardie; Gerald Dufresne; Dorothy Vachon; Betty Mullen; Zenaida Rodriguez; Warren Titus Mills; James Anthony Mullen; Willia

Titus, Ch. J. This action is brought for a divorce. The plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, the commission of *498adultery by the defendant with various persons named in the complaint. The answer of the defendant is a general denial of these charges, and contains countercharges of adultery of the plaintiff with various persons. The plaintiff’s

Titus, Ch. J. —The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, for $2,446.89, and from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the minutes of the judge. . The plaintiff was employed as a laborer by the defendant in its yards on Genesee street in this city, and in common with other laborers who were engaged in removing steel plates to be p

Titus, Ch. J. The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, for $2,446.89, and from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the minutes of the judge. The plaintiff was employed as a laborer by the defendant in its yards on Genesee street in this city, and in common with other laborers who were engaged in removing steel plates to he plac

TITUS, C. J. The facts in this case are similar in all respects to the facts in the case bearing the same title, and designated “No. 1.” 23 N. Y. Supp. 303. It was stipulated on the trial that the evidence taken in No. 1 should be considered as applicable to this case. The plaintiff here claims that the ■defendant violated section 1, c. 5, of the city ordinances, in crossing Main street at a greater rate of speed than six miles

721 P.2d 455 (1986) 79 Or. App. 574 C. Donald AINSWORTH, Director of the Division of Insurance, State of Missouri, and Domiciliary Receiver for Medallion Insurance Company and Missouri General Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Richard J. CINCOTTA dba Central West Insurance Agency, A & M Insurance Agency, Abel Insurance Inc., an Oregon corporation, Harry Abel Insurance Agency, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Marney L. Alle

CURTIN, Chief Judge. This case is before the court on appeal from a decision of the Bankruptcy Court denying the appellants’ applications to declare certain debts of the bankrupt nondischargeable in bankruptcy. For the reasons stated below, the Bankruptcy Court’s decision is reversed. Prior to his bankruptcy, the debtor was engaged in the business of building homes. The complaints in this case relate to deb

Titus, Ch. J. The facts in this case are similar in all respects to the facts in the case bearing the same title, and designated “Ho. 1.” It was stipulated on the trial that the evidence taken in Ho. 1 should be considered as applicable to this case. The plaintiff here claims that the defendant violated § 1, chap. 5, of the city ordinances, in crossing Main street at a greater rate of speed than six miles an hour. A judgment of $

Titus, Ch. J. This ease comes before us on a motion for a reargument. When the case was considered by this court on a former hearing, it was stated in the opinion of the court (23 N. Y. Supp. 301) that, “ at page 235 of the minutes of the court below, it appears that it was stipulated that the testimony in regard to trains stopping at Hydraulic street might be stricken out, thus leaving no testimony in the case of a failure to

TITUS, C. J. This action was brought in the municipal court to recover penalties for violating sections 1, 3, c. 5, of the city ordinances, in crossing certain streets at a greater rate of speed than six miles an hour, and in not bringing its trains to a full stop before crossing Griffin street and Hydraulic street. A judgment was obtained against the defendant in the court below for $100, being the amount of two penalties as fix

Titus, Ch. J. This action was brought in the municipal court to recover penalties for violating §§ 1, 3, chapter 5, of the city ordinances, in crossing certain streets at a greater rate of speed than six miles an hour, and in not bringing its trains to a full stop before crossing Griffin street and Hydraulic street. A judgment was obtained against the defendant in the court below for $100, being the amount of two penalties as fi

ACCEPTED 14-15-00178-cv FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/21/2015 11:31:57 AM

The facts in this controversy are undisputed, and are substantially as follows: Mary Partridge, the plaintiff, is a full-blood Creek, enrolled opposite No. 6417. October 20, 1903, she received as a part of her allotment the land in controversy. On April 9, 1907, she filed a verified petition with the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes alleging she desired to take advantage of the provision of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1903, and be authorized to sell a portion of her allotme

372 F.Supp. 1279 (1973) Eileen LOPEZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. Herbert M. WILLIAMS et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 71-67. United States District Court, S. D. Ohio, E. D. September 12, 1973. Probable Jurisdiction Noted February 19, 1974. *1280 *1281 Peter D. Roos, Eric E. Van Loon