Cases

LORETTA H. RUSH, Chief Justice. Under the authority vested in this Court to provide by rule for the procedure employed in all courts of this state and this Court’s inherent authority to supervise the administration of all courts of this state, Administrative Rule 4(A) is amended as follows (deletions shown by striking and new text shown by underlining): Rule 4. Committees (A) Recor

722 F.Supp.2d 602 (2010) Frank SANTI, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BUSINESS RECORDS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 09-5011. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. July 7, 2010. *604 James M. Duttera, Console Law Offices, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff. David M. Walsh, Jackson Lewis LLP, Morristown, NJ,

(2008) SOURCECORP BPS, INC., Plaintiff, v. KENWOOD RECORDS MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant. No. 4:06-cv-00435-JEG. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division. April 30, 2008. ORDER JAMES E. GRITZNER, District Judge. Before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. The Court conducted a motion hearing on Februar

BY JUDGE F. BRUCE BACH This matter came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. After hearing oral argument, the Court took the motion under advisement. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. As the parties are familiar with the facts, only a very brief recitation follows. On June 22, 1995, Gilbert K. Davis entered into a contra

989 So.2d 1187 (2008) JAMES v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIV. OF ARCHIVES HISTORY AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT. No. 1D07-3760. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. September 15, 2008. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.

966 S.W.2d 192 (1998) DOCUDATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. Keith WIESER, Appellee. No. 01-96-00341-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). March 26, 1998. *193 Kent J. Pagel, Houston, for appellant. Allen Craig Eiland, T. Bryan Akin, III, Houston, for appellee. Before WILSON, ANDELL

PER CURIAM.* Un these consolidated applications, defendant, MedSouth Record Management, LLC, seeks review of the district court’s rulings on various exceptions, as well as on discovery matters. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the district court denying defendant’s exception of no cause of action, and therefore pretermit discussion of the remaining assignments of error. <

38 So.3d 245 (2010) Richard E. WALTERS v. MEDSOUTH RECORD MANAGEMENT, LLC. Nos. 2010-CC-0351, 2010-CC-0352, 2010-CC-0353. Supreme Court of Louisiana. June 4, 2010. *246 PER CURIAM.[*] In these consolidated applications, defendant, MedSouth Record Management, LLC, seeks review of the district court's rulings on v

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), dated March 14, 2013, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. On June 25, 2011, the plaintiff, an employee of nonparty W

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), dated March 14, 2013, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. On June 25, 2011, the plaintiff, an employee of nonparty W

PER CURIAM.* |)In these consolidated applications, defendant, MedSouth Record Management, LLC, seeks review of the district court’s rulings on various exceptions, as well as on discovery matters. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the district court denying defendant’s exception of no cause of action, and therefore pretermit discussion of the remaining assignments of error.

In re Walters, Richard E. — Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s action dated June 4, 2010; Parish of Concor-dia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 43906; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-01146. Rehearing denied.

CONDITIONALLLY GRANTED and Opinion Filed November 22, 2024 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00674-CV IN RE PETER NICHOLAS, JR. AND BONNIE NICHOLAS, ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN P.J.N. AND J.P.N., Relators and No. 05-24-00680-CV IN RE Z RESORTS MANAGEMENT,

*220Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered May 16, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its first and third causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff landlord’s argument is unpersuasive that defendant tenant’s reliance on its leased-based restoration defense

In re Walters, Richard E. — Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this Court's action dated June 4, 2010; Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, *West Page 706 No. 43906; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-01147. Rehearing denied.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEGAL EAGLE, LLC, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 20-1732 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 7, 13, 21, 27 : NA

— Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered May 3, 2004, which, inter alia, found that certain actions were unrelated, unanimously dismissed as academic, with costs in favor of defendant, payable by plaintiff. In light of this Court’s decision in Solow Mgt. Corp. v Seltzer (18 AD3d — [2005] [decided herewith]), the disputed finding in the presently appealed order is academic. Concur — Andria

OPINION BY JUSTICE STEPHEN R. McCULLOUGH Heather Graham challenges the trial court's dismissal of her action, which sought to recover attorney's fees she incurred in defending a prior action. The trial court held *241 that Rule 3:25 "precluded [her] from requesting attorney's fees becaus

OPINION Justice McCAFFERY. We granted allowance of appeal in this case under the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”), Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104, to determine the standard and scope of review that apply when a court reviews a final determination of the Office of Open Records (the “OOR” or “Appellant”). Background of “Right-to-Know” Legislation in Pennsylv

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge. L.R. appeals the Final Order of the Department of State denying his petition for an administrative hearing to review the Division of Archives’ approval of the Dade County School Board’s Records Retention Schedule. The petition was denied based on the legal conclusion that the issues raised by the appellant were not yet ripe and that the proper time for him to seek review is when, if ever, the School B