Cases

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2025 ME 72 Docket: Was-24-528 Submitted On Briefs: May 21, 2025 Decided: August 7, 2025 Panel: MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, DOUGLAS, and LIPEZ, JJ. AMANDA M. (NEWMAN-RISER) NEWMAN v. GRAEME T. RISER LAWRENCE, J. [¶1] Graeme T. Riser appeals from a divorce judgmen

Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 03861) Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 03861 Decided on June 26, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 01940) Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC 2023 NY Slip Op 01940 Decided on April 13, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department FRIEDMAN, J. Published by New Yor

Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 01940) Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC 2023 NY Slip Op 01940 Decided on April 13, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department FRIEDMAN, J. Published by New Yor

Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 01669) Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 01669 [44 NY3d 74] March 20, 2025 Garcia, J. Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL NEWMAN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:23-cv-00436 (TNM) HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff Michael Newman is a former Howard University Law School student. He has sued the law scho

Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 06644) Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 06644 Decided on December 02, 2025 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting: I can only conclude that it was plain error for the prosecution to inject into the evidence before the jury the testimony of the Iowa State Police investigator concerning the death of the co-defendant, Varner, whose body was found in the Mississippi River while the prosecution was pending. Ultimately, the witness w

The three appellants instituted separate actions against appellee to recover damages on account of a collision of automobiles, alleged to have been caused, by negligence on the part of appellee. Appellee denied the charge of negligence, and the three cases were consolidated by consent and tried before a jury, but the court directed a verdict in favor of appellee. The question presented on this appeal is whether or not the evidence was legally sufficient to call for a submission of the issues

989 F.2d 507 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order. Ji

No petition for Certiorari was filed. The complainants in February, 1924, filed a general creditors bill against Joe Murphy, doing business under the firm name of Empire Cigar and Fruit Stand, in the city of Knoxville. The bill was sustained as such and Floyd Julian was appointed receiver to take charge of the effects of the firm, under a receiver's bond of $500. The receiver attempted to operate the business, under orders of the court, for a few months. He then

205 F.Supp. 649 (1962) James D. MILAM, Jr., Plaintiff, v. SOL NEWMAN COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 10102. United States District Court N. D. Alabama, S. D. June 12, 1962. *650 Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff. Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Birmingham, Al

Maxwell, C. J, This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on real estate. The petition is in the ordinary form. To this petition the defendant filed an answer as follows: *121“And now comes the defendant and by way of amended answer to the petition of the plaintiff in this case says: “ 1. This defendant adm

The opinion of the court was delivered by VALENTINE, J.: It is admitted that the controlling question involved in this case is as follows: “A.B. buys property from plaintiff and gives three notes in payment; two notes remain unpaid. S.B. buys and receives the property from A. B., and verbally only promises and assumes the payment of the notes sued on; these not being paid, action thereon i

81 U.S. 152 (1871) 14 Wall. 152 EX PARTE NEWMAN. Supreme Court of United States. *156 Messrs. D. McMahon and P. Phillips, in support of the motion. Messrs. Salomon and Burke, contra. *161 Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Attempt was made in the firs

By the Court, Cole, J. The plaintiffs in error were indicted at the November term of the circuit court of La Crosse county, 1860, for the crime of larceny. To the indictment they interposed a plea in abatement, alleging in substance that the grand jurors therein named, by whom the indictment was found and returned into court, were not, nor were any of them, at the time they so acted, and at the time t

POLLOCK, District Judge. Complainant, an Illinois corporation, the owner of securities in the amount of $510,000, deposited with the treasurer of this state as a reserve fund for the benefit of its policy holders, brings this suit to enjoin the defendants, the proper taxing •officers of the defendant board, from levying a tax against this property for the years 1894 and 1895. The foundation of complainant’s suit rests on the cla

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 678 The Revised Statutes and subsequent enactments provide ways for assessing, levying and collecting the State and other taxes upon lands. In doing so, they classify lands into two divisions: One those of residents, and the other those of non-residents. (1 R.S., p. 390, § 9; 391, § 11.) The assessment of 18

POOLER, Circuit Judge: This appeal stems from a dispute between insurer Century Indemnity Company and reinsurer Global Reinsurance Corporation of America regarding the amount of reimbursement Global is required to provide Century pursuant to certain reinsurance certificates. Century appeals from entry of an order of summary judgment by the Southern District of New York (Lorna G. Schofield, J. ). The district court granted

OPINION OF THE COURT Judith J. Gische, J. Petitioner and respondent were same sex domestic partners who lived together as a family, in a common household, from May 1993 until the fall of 2001. During a time when their family was intact, they planned to raise children together. On (date deleted) 1998, respondent gave birth to a son, L.M.H., conceived through artificial insemination. The parties, thereafter, f