Cases

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SEAN PATRICK BRADY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. )

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SEAN PATRICK BRADY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. )

Opinion issued March 29, 2007 In The Court of Appeals For The

*1023 OPINION DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Defendant police officers Patrick Brady and Shawn Murphy appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The plaintiff, Stev-erson Davis, alleges that the defendants violated his substantive due proce

Affirmed.

Dismissed.

Ruwe, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination). 1 We must decide whether to sustain the determination by respondent’s Appeals Office to collect petitioner’s unpaid income

60 F.3d 830NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action. Ronald W. BREWER, Appellant,v.CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.; Dr. Patrick Brady, Appellees. No. 94-2373. United States Court of Appeal

SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se, appeals from an April 24, 2007 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and a May 8, 2007 order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case, and th

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge James Brady (“Brady”) appeals from the entry of judgment in favor of Patrick Starke (“Starke”) and Patrick B. Starke, Attorney at Law, P.C. (“Law Firm”) on Brady’s claim to declare a fee-sharing agreement unenforceable, and on Starke’s and Law Firm’s counterclaim for breach of contract. Because a valid and enforceable fee-sharing agreement existed between

Application for an order pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules denied, the cross motion granted and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner’s request for sanctions denied. All concur. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

Appeals (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department) (1) from an order of the Court of Claims (Sise, PJ.), entered September 7, 2007, which denied claimant’s motion for permission to file a claim, (2) from an order of said court, entered September 10, 2007, which denied claimant’s motion for permission to file a claim, and (3) from an order of said court, entered September 11, 2007, which denied claimant’s motion

SUMMARY ORDER We have considered all of petitioner’s arguments and have found each of them to be without merit. We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the District Court’s Decision and Order dated July 17, 2003. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

7 F.Supp.2d 247 (1998) Kevin Patrick BRADY, Plaintiff, v. Patricia D. MARKS, et al., Defendants. No. 98-CV-6196L. United States District Court, W.D. New York. June 22, 1998. *248 *249 Kevin Patrick Brady, East Rochester, NY, pro se. DECISION AND ORDER LARIMER, Ch

8 N.Y.3d 866 (2007) In the Matter of KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, Appellant, v. JEROME C. GORSKI et al., Respondents. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Submitted December 11, 2006. Decided February 20, 2007. Chief Judge KAYE and Judge PIGOTT taking no part. On the Court's own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial consti

659 S.E.2d 368 (2008) BRADY v. The STATE. No. S08A0174. Supreme Court of Georgia. March 31, 2008. *369 James Gray Brady, pro se. Patrick H. Head, District Attorney, Dana J. Norman, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Amy E. Hawkins Morelli, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. HUNS

MEMORANDUM *** Patrick Brady (Brady) appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration after its grant of summary judgment to Hanger Orthopedic, Inc., et al. (Hanger). We affirm. Brady contends, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (Rule 26) in crediting Hanger’s argument that Brady could not survive

MEMORANDUM *** Patrick Brady (Brady) appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration after its grant of summary judgment to Hanger Orthopedic, Inc., et al. (Hanger). We affirm. Brady contends, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (Rule 26) in crediting Hanger’s argument that Brady could not survive

—Motion for permission to appeal to Court of Appeals denied. Memorandum: We have no jurisdiction over this matter. An appeal from a judgment of conviction in a local criminal court lies with County Court (see, CPL 450.60 [3]), and an appeal from the County Court order determining the appeal from the judgment lies with the Court of Appeals (see, CPL 450.90 [1]). Present— Green, J. P., Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-76,984-01