Cases

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. Robert Gillette appeals his conviction for conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 846, contending that the trial court2 should *1033have suppressed a methamphetamine lab that police seized from the bed of his pickup truck and Mr. Gillette’s subsequent state

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YOUNG, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiffs Sheila Lyons (“Lyons”) and Homecoming Farm, Inc. (“Homecoming Farm”) claim infringement of their trademark and copyrighted work. Lyons and Homecoming Farm also have brought additional claims, including Chapter 93A violations, misappropriation of “intellectual property,” loss of business opportunity, a

Chief Justice CAPPY concurring. I join the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court in its result, but I disassociate myself from its rationale. The lead opinion would find that Debbie Gillette had a right to receive an award under the Wrongful Death Act, and that Ms. Gillette’s right had passed by operation of the Workers’ Compensation Act to Utica National Insurance which compensated Ms. Gillette for

Opinion CORRIGAN, J. Here we consider how California calculates income taxes on multistate businesses. In 1974, California joined the Multistate Tax Compact (Multistate Tax Com., Model Multistate Tax Compact (Aug. 4, 1967)) (Compact), which contained an apportionment formula and permitted a taxpayer election between the Compact’s formula and any other formula

TRANSFER ORDER WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman. This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in the District of Massachusetts and one action pending in the Central District of California.1 Plaintiff in one of the District of Massachusetts actions moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the District of Mas

—In an action, inter alia, to recover the proceeds of a loan, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated April 16, 1997, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action as barred by the Statute of Frauds. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

69 F.Supp.2d 246 (1999) THE GILLETTE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. NORELCO CONSUMER PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Division of Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant. No. CIV. A. 96-12034-RCL. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. October 6, 1999. *247 George J. Skelly, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Boston, M

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated March 10, 1998, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action asserted under Labor Law § 240 (1). Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the m

PER CURIAM. The appellant, Keith Rondell Gillette, challenges the revocation of his community control and one of the prison sentences which was imposed as a result of that revocation. We affirm the revocation of community control but reverse the sentence imposed in circuit court case number 94-12971. Appellant was serving concurrent sentences of community control in circuit court case number 94-12971 a

*1181 Opinion DETJEN, J. Appellant and minor, Robert M., appeals from the juvenile court’s order modifying the dispositional order in his Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 proceeding. 1 Minor contends the order dir

828 F.Supp. 78 (1993) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. The GILLETTE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 93-0573 (RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. May 5, 1993. *79 Burney P.C. Huber, Dept. of Justice, Antitrust Div., Washington DC, for plaintiff. Robert B. Greenbaum, Skadden, Arps, Slate

People v Gillette (2020 NY Slip Op 07471) People v Gillette 2020 NY Slip Op 07471 Decided on December 10, 2020 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary

People v Gillette (2020 NY Slip Op 07471) People v Gillette 2020 NY Slip Op 07471 Decided on December 10, 2020 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary

PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence for sale of cocaine. We vacate his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine on the authority of V.A.A. v. State, 561 So.2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). As in V.A.A., we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance: WHEN A DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION IS ALLEGED BASED ON THE CRIME

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERT CUNNINGHAM , No. 09-99008 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:02-CV-07170- GHK ROBERT K. WONG , Respondent-Appellee. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Centr

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2024 ME 57 Docket: Cum-23-74 Argued: September 13, 2023 Decided: August 6, 2024 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ.* ROBERT L. CONNARY et al. v. RICHARD A. SHEA et al. STANFILL, C.J. [¶1

OPINION THOMAS, Circuit Judge: A California jury convicted Anthony John Sully of six counts of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. The California Supreme Court summarily denied Sully’s state habeas petition, and the district court granted Respondent’s motions for summary judgment with respect to Sully’s federal habeas petition. Sully now a

COBB, Judge. The appellant, Sandra Gillette, challenges the validity of a search warrant predicated upon the affidavit of an undisclosed confidential informant. The confidential informant had not supplied information in the past and was not a citizen informant; nor did the affidavit show independent indicia of reliability, i.e., inculpatory details independently corroborated by law enforcement personnel prior to issua

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II through IV of the Discussion. [EDITORS' NOTE: TEXT NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPEARS WITH GRAY BACKGROUND BELOW.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Pa

OPINION BY Judge FRIEDMAN. Patricia E. Gillette, Mary E. Burnham, Brian E. Gillette, Jason M. Gillette, Jeremy M.O. Burnham, Robert J.S. Burnham, Chad Kunz, John O.S. Burnham and Ruth E. Burnham (collectively, Condemnees) appeal from the May 2, 2005, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County (trial court) overruling Con-demnees’ preliminary objections to Spring-boro Area Water Authority’s (the Auth