Cases

Mercier, Judge. *340 Following the reversal of his convictions for kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and making harassing phone calls, Gregory Levin appeals the denial of his motion in autrefois convict (double jeopar

O’Donnell, J., dissenting. {¶ 48} While I concur with the majority’s conclusion that no minimum percentage of unreimbursed care is required in order to qualify for a charitable-use exemption, I disagree with the majority’s determination that Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (“DCI”) is not entitled to the exemption on the ground that it does not provide service in a nondiscrimi

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Buse, S.M.), dated September 2, 2009, which, inter alia, granted the mother’s application for an upward modification of her child support obligation to the sum of $355 biweekly, (2) an order of the same court dated October 15, 2009, which directed the entry of a money judgment in favor of the mother for child supp

SYKES, Circuit Judge. Ryan'Lord claims that he was sexually harassed by male coworkers at High Voltage Software, Inc., and that High Voltage fired him for complaining about it. High Voltage responds that the conduct Lord complained about wasn’t' sexual harassment and that it fired Lord for other reasons: failing to properly report his concerns, excessive preoccupation with his coworkers’ performance, and insubordination. The

HICKS, J. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 34, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Lynch, C.J.) certified to us the following question: Under sections 500-A:7-a(V) and 651:5 of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes and the undisputed facts of this case, is a felon wh

11 So.3d 408 (2009) Lara EMBRY, Appellant, v. Kimberly RYAN, Appellee. No. 2D08-1323. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. May 13, 2009. *409 John R. Blue and Cristina Alonso of Carlton Fields, P.A., Miami, Shannon P. Minter of National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, CA, and Karen Doering, St. Petersbu

In Mandamus.

ORDER Honorable G. Murray Snow, United States District Judge Pending before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Arizona Republic, Associated Press, Guardian News & Media LLC, KPHO Broadcasting Corporation, KPNX-TV Channel 12, and Star Publishing Company (Doc. 43), and the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Charles L. Ryan (Doc. 45). For the following reasons, the

Lanzinger, J. {¶ 1} This case concerns unwanted telephone solicitation through use of automated equipment, which now makes a caller subject to liability under federal and state statutes. The issue before us is whether the terms “knowingly” and “willfully” as used in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), Section 227

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissenting. {¶ 34} I believe that the Church of God in Northern Ohio (“COG”) uses its property exclusively for the charitable purposes of providing public worship and community programs and is therefore exempt from taxation under R.C. 5709.12(B). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. {¶ 35} Under R.C. 5709.12, property is

747 F.Supp.2d 355 (2010) SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Matthew John RYAN and Prime Rate and Return, LLC, individually and doing business as American Integrity Financial Co., Defendants. Civ. No. 1:10-CV-513 (NAM/RFT). United States District Court, N.D. New York. October 20, 2010. *358 U.S. Securities & Exc

Levine, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered December 26, 1990 in Tompkins County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him. Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1968. In October 1988, plaintiff commenced this divorce action alleging cruel and inhuman treatment. Defendant then answered and counterclaimed for divorce, se

145 F.Supp.2d 280 (2001) Mohammad KHAN Plaintiffs, v. Patrick P. RYAN, John Doe, Richard Roe and the City of New York Defendants. No. 99 CV 2142. United States District Court, E.D. New York. April 10, 2001. *281 *282 Alan D. Levine, Kew Gardens, NY, for Mahammad Khan, plaintiff. John P.

90 N.Y.2d 822 (1997) 682 N.E.2d 977 660 N.Y.S.2d 376 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles E. Ryan, Appellant. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued May 1, 1997 Decided June 5, 1997. MacKrell, Rowlands, Premo & Pierro, P. C., Albany (Brian D. Premo of counsel), for appellant

PER CURIAM: On appeal, co-defendants Terrance Ryan (“Ryan”) and Rohan St. Von Evening (“Ev-ering”) raise numerous issues pertaining to their jury trial and sentences on various charges. We address these issues seria-tim. I. Terrance Ryan On August 15, 2000, Terrance Ryan was convicted by a jur

860 F.2d 1073 Kucher (John)v.Levin (Edward), U.S. Postal Service, Ryan (James) NO. 87-1991 United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit. SEP 29, 1988 1 Appeal From: D.Mass. 2

LEVINE, Justice, concurring specially. I write specially to warn that this ease should not be read to support the notion that the domestic violence presumption only arises when there is evidence of “physical abuse” or “actual injury.” The legislature has defined domestic violence broadly to include not only actual physical harm and bodily injury, but also “the infliction of fear of imminen

Levin, J. (dissenting). Thomas J. Ryan was convicted of possession with intent to deliver more than 650 grams of cocaine, and sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.1 The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion,2 but found that Ryan had established a prima faci

*26OPINION OF THE COURT Levine, J. In October 1990, State Police Inspector Douglas Vredenburgh, acting pursuant to a search warrant and with the consent of Federal Express authorities, opened a package shipped via Federal Express and addressed to David Hopkins. The package held mushrooms containing psilocybin, a controlled substance under New York law

LEVINE, Justice, concurring in part and in the result. The majority goes through an elaborate analysis before it concludes that there is no dram shop liability when a “superseding, intervening cause” breaks the causal link between dram shop fault and the injury inflicted by the intoxicated person. I agree with the conclusion, but not with the analysis. In essence, the majority fi