Cases

Peters, J.R Defendant was indicted for assault in the second degree after he punched a fellow inmate in the face at the Broome County Jail. Convicted following a jury trial, he now appeals. Defendant claims that he was denied a fair trial because the indictment referenced his confinement in a correctional facility and the procedures set forth in CPL 200.60 were not followed. CPL 200.60 (1) provides that “[w]

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Peter Weber appeals a judgment of dismissal, without prejudice, based on forum non conveniens (“FNC”). The district court decided that the subject contract contained a valid and enforceable forum selection clause (“FSC”) requiring litigation in Germany. Because the FSC is mandatory and enforceable, and no overwhelming public inter

[Cite as Dove v. Lakewood, 2025-Ohio-453.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA TONY D. DOVE, : Plaintiff- Appellant, : No. 113905 v. : CITY OF LAKEWOOD, ET AL., :

402 F.Supp.2d 91 (2005) Herman T. DOVE, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant. No. Civ.A. 03-2156 RMU. United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 29, 2005. *92 *93 Peter Richard Maignan, Landover, MD, for Plaintiff. Cheryl Crandall Burke,

658 A.2d 936 (1995) STATE of Vermont v. Jonathan DOVE. No. 93-441. Supreme Court of Vermont. March 24, 1995. *937 William D. Wright, Bennington County State's Atty., and Marcia J. Moss, Deputy State's Atty., Bennington, for plaintiff-appellee. Peter F. Langrock and Kevin E. Brown of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury,

MEMORANDUM OPINION URBINA, District Judge. Granting the Dependant’s Motion to Amend I. INTRODUCTION At this formative stage, the instant wrongful termination case subscribes to the idea of second chances. Before the court is the defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer to the complaint with the affirmative defense of res judicata. The pla

OPINION CAHN, District Judge. This lawsuit seeks to place the Pottsville Police Department, and indeed every police department, on the horns of an intractable dilemma. The defendant, a Pottsville Police Officer, has asked the court to resolve the dilemma by cutting off one of the horns pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the court will do so. When ruling

OPINION DUGGAN, Justice. Appellant, Marilyn Dove (Dove), sued ap-pellee, the Director of the State Employees Workers’ Compensation Division (the Director), seeking total and permanent disability benefits for an alleged injury incurred in the course and scope of her employment at the Texas Department of Corrections. A jury found that appellant had been injured, but that her injury was not a producing cause of

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS PETER MANUEL CANDELARIA, § No. 08-20-00009-CR Appellant, § Appeal from the

920 A.2d 511 (2007) 173 Md. App. 602 Loy DOVE, et al. v. Walter CHILDS, et al. No. 233, Sept. Term, 2006. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. April 4, 2007. *512 Paul N. De Santis, Towson (Nevett Steele, Jr., on brief), Baltimore, for appellant. Lawrence J. Gebhardt, Baltimore, for appellee. <

GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge: We withdraw the prior panel opinion and substitute the following: With its colorful history and rich cultural stew, Louisiana has long been a popular setting for works of fiction, including movies. In recent years the state has also tried to become a place where films are made. That effort enjoyed considerable success. The Cu

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 1126 CA 16-00143 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. PETER C. BRADY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARY LOU DOMINO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. BROWN CHIARI LLP, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY M. HUDSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (MAURICE L. SYKES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDA

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER SCULLIN, Senior Judge I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court are Defendant Central Intelligence Agency’s (“CIA”) motion for summary judgment 2 and Plaintiffs response thereto, which includes a motion for additional discovery pursuant to Rul

FAIR, J., for the Court': ¶ 1. Peter Russell entered into a two-year lease, for a condominium 1 shortly before it was foreclosed upon, and the continuing validity of his lease'was challenged by the new owner. Beachwalk Condominiums. Association, the homeowners’ association, brought a separate suit

Case: 16-30104 Document: 00514619324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2018 REVISED August 28, 2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 16-30104 August 24, 2018

Case: 16-30104 Document: 00514593666 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-30104 FILED August 9, 20

Mercure, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered October 27, 1993, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. In satisfaction of three indictments containing four counts, defendant pleaded guilty

[Cite as Covenant Dove Holding Co., L.L.C. v. Mariner Health Care, Inc., 2013-Ohio-3824.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO COVENANT DOVE HOLDING : APPEAL NO. C-120878 COMPANY, LLC, COVENANT DOVE, TRIAL NO. A-0805955 LLC, ARK HOLDING, INC., ARK REAL : ESTATE, LLC, ARK MISSISSIPPI

87 Cal.Rptr.2d 719 (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 964 Alexandra D. DATIG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DOVE BOOKS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B108013. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three. July 15, 1999. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing August 13, 1999. *721 Law Offi

FEDERMAN, Chief Judge. Appellant Terri A. Running, the Chapter 7 Trustee in the bankruptcy case of Joseph Matthias Miller, contends that the Bankruptcy Court1 erred in holding that an annuity owned by the Debtor qualifies as an “individual retirement annuity” under § 408(b) of the Internal Revenue Code2 and is, therefore, exempt under § 522(b)(3)(C) of the Bankruptcy