Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ___________________________________ ) CANDICE LORRAINE PARKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-0656 (RC) ) SOLIS MAMMOGRAPHY,

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

BAP Appeal No. 23-3 Docket No. 51 Filed: 01/23/2024 Page: 1 of 30 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ IN RE MOTIVA PERFORMANCE BAP No. NM-23-003 ENGINEERING, LLC, Debtor. ___________________________________ Bankr. No. 19-125

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS; PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO TAX COSTS AUDREY B. COLLINS, District Judge. Pending before the Court are two motions for attorney’s fees filed by Plaintiffs Fred Pierce, et al.: the first was filed on July 31, 2009 and supplemented on August 12, 2011 (Docket Nos. 665, 793); and the *1023secon

30 So.3d 1222 (2010) Fernando Martinez PARKER a/k/a Tal v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 2008-KA-00409-SCT. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 25, 2010. *1224 Kelsey Levoil Rushing, Jackson, attorney for appellant. Office of the Attorney General by Deirdre Mccrory, attorney for appellee. Before WALLER, C.J., LAMAR and

DONOFRIO, Presiding Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a conditional order for new trial entered in favor of appellees Barney Pierce (principal beneficiary) and the First National Bank of Arizona (executor) who were the proponents of the will of Elizabeth E. Frick, deceased, also referred to as testatrix. The trial court’s conditional ruling on the motion for new trial was pursuant to 16

OPINION SULT, Judge. ¶ 1 Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 14-3720 (1995) permits a personal representative of a decedent’s estate to be reimbursed attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting or defending a claim, even though unsuccessfully, so long as the litigation is undertaken in good faith. The question raised in this appeal is whether our prior cases applying the statute have judicially engrafted a

MEMORANDUM OPINION LEON JORDAN, District Judge. This civil action is before the court for consideration of “Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” [doc. 13]. Plaintiff has filed a response [doc. 25], and defendant has submitted a reply [doc. 29]. Oral *676argument is unnecessary, and the motion is ripe for the court’s determination.

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff General Parker, an African American, alleges that he was fired from his job because of his race and in retaliation for complaints of racial.discrimination. He filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. His suit never got off the ground because the district court thought that Parker

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-23-00064-CV SUNDAY SKY PROPERTIES, INC., APPELLANT V. TY J. JONES, SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE AND INDEPENDENT BANK, APPELLEES On Appeal from the 481st Judicial District Court

474 F.Supp.2d 261 (2007) David PARKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. William HURLEY, et al., Defendants. C.A. No. 06-10751-MLW. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. February 23, 2007. *262 Jeffrey A. Denner, Denner Pellegrino LLP, Robert S. Sinsheimer, Denner Associates, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs. John J. Davis,

125 P.3d 1027 (2005) Iris ENDERS, Appellant, v. Glen PARKER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joel W. Kottke, Appellee. No. S-11437. Supreme Court of Alaska. October 14, 2005. Rehearing Denied January 17, 2006. *1028 Timothy R. Byrnes, Hughes Thorsness Powell Huddleston & Bauman LLC, Anchorage, for Ap

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING KITCHENS, Justice, for the Court: ¶ 1. Bronwyn Benoist Parker’s motion for rehearing is granted. The original opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. ¶ 2. Parker and William Benoist are siblings who litigated the will of their father, Billy Dean “B.D

264 B.R. 685 (2001) In re Richard W. PARKER, Debtor. Jenee Marie Watson, Appellant, v. Richard W. Parker, Appellee. BAP No. KS-00-066. Bankruptcy No. 96-42822. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit. July 13, 2001. *686 *687 *688

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2012-CA-02010-SCT BRONWYN BENOIST PARKER v. WILLIAM DEAN BENOIST AND WILLIAM D. BENOIST, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HIS CAPACITY OF EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BILLY DEAN “B.D.” BENOIST, DECEASED v. BRONWYN BENOIST PARKER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/20/2012 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. PERCY L. LYNCHARD, JR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: GOODLOE TANKERSLEY LEWIS AMANDA POVAL

Parker, C. J. It has been contended that the agent cannot be charged as trustee in this case, because he is a public officer. There are authorities in support of this objection, and reasons of a public nature which fully sustain them, but this case is not within the principle. Treadwell is here merely the agent of the town, to do a certain service, and the town itself is a corporation liable to be summoned as trustee, and actual

STUART, Justice. MTA, Inc., appeals the order of the Madison Circuit Court holding that MTA’s claims against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fen-ner & Smith, Inc., a division of Bank of Ameriea Corporation (“Merrill Lynch”), were subject to an arbitration agreement and compelling MTA to arbitrate those claims. We reverse and remand. I. On January 21, 1994, MTA entered into a deferred-compen

GRAVES, J., for the Court. ¶ 1. This matter is an appeal from the judgment of the Chancery Court of Jefferson Davis County in which the chancellor set aside various transfers of mineral deeds as fraudulent. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW ¶ 2. On June 6, 1990 Dan Livingston, Robert L. Burklow and Melvin Burklow each obtained a summary final judgment in the chambers of the Circuit

Cole, J. I. The first question presented by the transcript in this case is one of fact rather than of law. It is this: Was Philleo the owner of the “ claim,” and did Hogan receive the obligation of Buell as agent of, and in trust for, Philleo ? There is no written evidence offered of Philleo’s title to the “ claim,” and although it is sought to be proved that he purchased it from one Hanna, yet no conveyance is shown nor

DICKINSON, Justice, dissenting: ¶ 25.[W]herever the rights or the situation of parties are clearly defined and established by law, equity has no power to change or unsettle those rights or that situation, but in all such instances the maxim equitas sequitur legem6 is strictly applicable. Magniac v. Thomson, 15 How. 281, 29