Cases

JUSTICE BAKER delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 James C. Quigley and Linda M.S. Quigley (Quigley) and Richard L. Beck assert conflicting claims of ownership over four water rights for irrigation from Nevada Creek. After presiding over a trial and conducting a site inspection, the Water Master issued a report

251 P.3d 380 (2011) Amy YOUNG, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Kenneth L. BECK and Barbara Beck, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellants. No. CV-10-0230-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. April 5, 2011. *382 Beale Micheaels & Slack PC By K. Thomas Slack, Tracy Gromer, Phoenix, Attorney for Amy Young. Ehmann DeCiancio PLLC B

268 F.Supp.2d 210 (2003) RYAN, BECK & CO., LLC, Plaintiff, v. Youssef FAKIH, et al., Defendants. No. 02-CV-4052 (RLM). United States District Court, E.D. New York. June 20, 2003. *213 Christopher J. Bebel, Shepherd, Smith & Bebel, P.C., Houston, TX, Ariel Berschadsky, Shepherd, Smith & Bebel, P.C., New York City, Edwa

275 F.Supp.2d 393 (2003) RYAN, BECK & CO., LLC, Plaintiff, v. Youssef FAKIH, et al., Defendants. No. 02-CV-4052 (RLM). United States District Court, E.D. New York. August 6, 2003. *394 Christopher J. Bebel, Shepherd Smith & Bebel, P.C., Houston, TX, Ariel Berschadsky, Shepherd, Smith & Bebel, P.C., Edward H. Glenn, Jr

935 A.2d 258 (2007) Walter E. RYAN, Jr., and Donna Conrad, in the right of and the benefit of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Plaintiffs v. John F. GIFFORD, Fredrick G. Beck, Carl W. Jasper, Tunc Doluca, Pirooz Parvarandeh, Richard C. Hood, Vijaykumar Ullal, Charles G. Rigg, Michael J. Byrd, James R. Bergman, B. Kipling Hagopian, A.R. Frank Wazzan, Eric P. Karros, M.D. Sampels, and Alan Hale, Defendants, and Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.,

[Cite as State v. Beck, 2025-Ohio-2152.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114522 v. : ANTHONY BECK, :

BERGER, Justice. We accepted this interlocutory appeal to consider a claim that directors failed to act in good faith in conducting the sale of their company. The Court of Chancery decided that “unexplained inaction” permits a reasonable inference that the directors may have consciously disregarded their fiduciary duties. The trial court expressed concern about the speed with which the transaction was consummated; the director

This latter set of circumstances arises only in a " 'special and small category' of cases." Gunn , 568 U.S. at 258, 133 S.Ct. 1059 (quoting Empire Healthchoice ,

JAN P. PATTERSON, Justice, concurring. Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion to affirm the trial court’s judgment, I concur in the judgment only. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.1, 47.5. In their first issue, appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting a pai'tial summary judgment as to their claims of breach of fiduciary duty, DTPA violations, and breach of contract

KEM THOMPSON FROST, Chief Justice, concurring and dissenting. The trial court correctly concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over both the plaintiffs claims under the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act and the defendant’s counterclaim for attorney’s fees under that statute for defending against the plaintiffs claims. Therefore, this court should affirm the trial court’s judgment in its entirety.

(1) A person2 who knowingly distributed, or knowingly participated in the *811chain of distribution of, an illegal drug that was actually used by the individual drug user [underlying the case]; [or] (2) A person who knowingly participated in the illegal drug market, if:

Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. doing business as AT & T Texas (AT & T), a public utility company with facilities attached to a city bridge designated to be *581demolished, sought a declaratory judgment that the Harris County Flood Control District must bear the costs of relocating AT &

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 115,219 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHARLES A. BECK, JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Sentence recommendat

IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED Rita Tafelski, Jul 10 2026, 10:11 am Appellant CLERK Indiana Supreme

DECISION This case came on for consideration on an appeal from the Probate Court of the Town of Coventry. The parties differ on their interpretation of a Will. The parties agreed that this appeal contained no issues of fact, waived a jury trial, and submitted the issues to the Court for determination of the law and interpretation of the Will. The parties have submitted memoranda.

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT RYAN ANTHONY TATHAM, ) ) Appellant, ) ) WD87280 v. ) ) OPINION FILED: ) May 27, 2025 STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and

SECOND DIVISION MILLER, P. J., MERCIER, J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE PHIPPS NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS

Justice BROWN delivered the opinion of the Court. This case involves the attempted sale of two pieces of real estate in downtown San Antonio — the Rivercenter Mall and the ground beneath the San Antonio Marriott Riverwalk hotel. After a deal to sell the properties fell through, the seller sued its tenant — the hotel owners — over actions the seller believed

708 S.E.2d 87 (2011) Benjamin Franklin PASS, Plaintiff, v. Jacqueline Odette BECK, Defendant. No. COA09-1647. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. March 1, 2011. *88 Lea, Rhine & Rosbrugh, PLLC, Wilmington, by James W. Lea, III, for plaintiff-appellant. No brief filed for defendant-appellee. STROUD, Judge.