Cases

SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Paul Russo, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. On appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint for lack of subject m

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-appellant Frank Russo pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., by conducting asbestos abatements without following applicable Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulations. The district court (Hurd, J.) sentenced him principally to a term of eighteen months’ imprisonment. Russo now appeals from the sentence. We assume familiarity with the facts

JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal primarily concerns a narrow issue of federal procedural law and an equally narrow issue of New York procedural law. The federal law issue is whether a real party defendant in interest that owns and operates a non-juridical entity that was improperly sued in state court may remove a diversity case to federal court without filing an appear

[Cite as Darr v. Livingston, 2017-Ohio-841.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Kelly Darr, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 16AP-315 v. : (C.P.C. No. 08DR06-2576) Seth Livingston,

*1302Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Livingston County (Joan S. Kohout, A.J.), entered March 27, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendant Niagara Frontier Recovery, LLC for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed

840 A.2d 238 (2004) 178 N.J. 340 Joseph MACEDO, Rosemary Lesky, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Joseph DELLO RUSSO, M.D., Joseph Dello Russo, M.D., P.A. t/a New Jersey Eye Center, Medical Care, P.L.L.C. d/b/a Dello Russo Laser Vision, William T. Kellogg, M.D., Defendants-Appellants, and John Does 1-10 and ABC Corporations 1-10, Defendants. Supreme Court of New J

Cavanagh, C.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority that the amended statute of limitations was intended by the Legislature to apply to offenses not barred when the amendment took effect.1 I also agree that the application of the amended statute of limitations does not violate the

565 So.2d 1288 (1988) Jessie James LIVINGSTON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 68323. Supreme Court of Florida. March 10, 1988. Rehearing Denied September 6, 1990. *1289 Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and David A. Davis, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant. Robert A. Bu

*994Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The plaintiffs appeal from orders dismissing their complaints which alleged false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, prima facie tort, conspiracy and deprivation of constitutional rights. Plaintiffs were indicted by a Livingston County Grand Jury accusing them of endangering the welfare of a child in violation of subdivision 1 of section

In an action to recover damages for breach of a covenant against incumbrances in a deed, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 28, 1963, upon the opinion-decision of the court after a nonjury trial, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Appeal dismissed, without costs. The notice of appeal was not timely served (People ex rel. Manhattan Stor. & Warehouse Co. v. Lilly, 29

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge: A longshoreman and his wife appeal the judgment on a directed verdict against them in their action for damages arising from the alleged negligence of a vessel under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) (1988). The district court found as a matter of law that the longshoreman was engaged in ship repair at the time

11-196-cr United States v. Turner 1 United States Court of Appeals 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term 2011 5 6 (Argued: May 15, 2012 Decided: June 21, 2013) 7 8 No. 11-196-cr 9 _____________________________________ 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge: Lead Plaintiffs State-Boston Retirement System and Fjarde AP-Fonden brought this putative securities fraud class action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated investors (“Plaintiffs”) pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. They allege that Morgan Stanley and six of its officers and former officers — John

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment: I join in Parts I, II and III.A of the majority opinion. I write separately as to Part III.B-E only to make clear my disagreement with the majority’s conclusion that improper or undue influence is a form of corruption that may be addressed with closely drawn contribution limits. To the exte

PER CURIAM: This case returns to the Court for the second time since 2013. After the September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“Lehman”), Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit on behalf of a putative class, of former participants in an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”) invested exclusively in Lehman’s common stock. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants-Appellees (“Plan Committee Defendants”

Matter of Brady v Brady (2021 NY Slip Op 02705) Matter of Brady v Brady 2021 NY Slip Op 02705 Decided on April 30, 2021 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

[Cite as Webb v. Buckeye Schools, 2024-Ohio-5314.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO SEAN M. WEBB Case No. 2023-00700PQ Requester Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck v. DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE BUCKEYE SCHOOLS Respondent {¶1} On April 3, 2024, requester filed a motion asking that respondent be ordered to comply with

Appeal from an order of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), dated January 27, 2015. The order imposed restitution. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. *1651 Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order of restitution arising from

A.Y. v Broadway Mall Partners, L.P. (2019 NY Slip Op 06016) A.Y. v Broadway Mall Partners, L.P. 2019 NY Slip Op 06016 Decided on July 31, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Report

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judge: Defendant Mary Opoka was convicted of marriage fraud, and defendants Gaurav Mehta and Isha Mehta were each convicted of both marriage fraud and immigration fraud. See 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (c) ;