Cases

883 S.W.2d 386 (1994) Burnice Joe BIRDO, Appellant, v. Bruce W. SCHWARTZER, et al., Appellees. No. 10-94-050-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco. August 24, 1994. Burnice J. Birdo, pro se. Before THOMAS, C.J., and CUMMINGS and VANCE, JJ. OPINION VANCE, Justice. In this appeal we determine the propriety of a dismissal, under sect

PER CURIAM. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 217 So.2d 843, which opinion is as follows: “PER CURIAM. “This appeal presents the same issue which has previously been dealt with in Ringenberger v. General Accident F. & L. Assur. Corp., Fla.App. 1968

Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part, and Opinion filed May 9, 2002 Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part, and Opinion filed May 9, 2002.

VINSON, District Judge: Albert Thomas, a prisoner acting pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the record in this case does not support such a sanction, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-03-076-CV CHARLES W. BISHOP APPELLANT V.</

BISHOP V. LAWSON COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-03-076-CV CHARLES W. BISHOP APPELLANT V.

MEMORANDUM * CT Cimarron LLC appeals from the judgment of the district court reversing a bankruptcy order declaring that it had a right of first refusal on certain California property (“the property”). We reverse. Because the parties are familiar with the complex factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here. I The key question on appeal is

MEMORANDUM * CT Cimarron LLC appeals from the judgment of the district court reversing a bankruptcy order declaring that it had a right of first refusal on certain California property (“the property”). We reverse. Because the parties are familiar with the complex factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here. I The key question on appeal is

Honorable Mike K. Nakagawa, United States Bankruptcy Judge On June 5, 2018, a hearing was held on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment *713brought by City National Bank ("CNB") in the above-captioned adversary proceeding. The appearances of counsel were noted in the record. After arguments were presented, the matter was taken under submiss

MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ (A) MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (DOC. 16) AND (B) MOTION TO DISMISS CROSS-CLAIM (DOC. 34) John E. Hoffman, Jr., United States Bankruptcy Judge I. Introduction In this adversary proceeding, the Chapter 7 trustees of two separate bankruptcy estates seek to avoid the same alleged fraudulent transfer of a membership interest in a limited lia

94 S.W.3d 650 (2002) Thomas RETZLAFF, Appellant, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Appellee. No. 14-01-00371-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). May 9, 2002. Rehearing Overruled August 29, 2002. *651 Thomas C. Retzlaff, Rosharon, Cari Gaye Bernstein, Austin, for appellant. Panel con

131 S.W.3d 571 (2004) Charles W. BISHOP, Appellant v. Julia LAWSON, Dr. Thomas Stark, Robert Treon, Dr. William Samarneh, Steve Patty, Dr. David Potter, Alvin Easterling, Angela Milbern, and Maye Snider, Appellees. No. 2-03-076-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. March 4, 2004. *572 Charles W. Bishop, Tennessee Colony, pro

IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER , TEXAS F|LED in COURT OF APPEALS NO. 12-14-00 3 32-CV REC'D If ^LS 12th Court r . Hstr

Forde, J. In this action to recover a $20,000 death benefit under a life insurance policy, the trial court found for the plaintiff on the breach of contract claim, and for the defendant insurance company on the plaintiffs Chapter 93A claim. The defendant has appealed on three grounds, as follows: First, the court erred in allowing a prior attorney for the plaintiff to testily concerning the content of a conversation he had with the

THOMAS, Justice, dissenting. Respectfully, I must dissent from the resolution of this case according to the majority opinion. I am satisfied that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of Ruby, albeit I rely upon a different correct, legal ground from that presented in the order granting summary judgment to Ruby and the clarification of that order that was entered later. The correct resolution

Darryl W. Bell v. Collins, et al. IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-97-150-CV

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 299 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 300 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA CHELSEA FLINT, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 74709 Appellant, vs. FRANKTOWN MEADOWS, INC.,D/B/A FILED FRANKTOWN MEADOWS EQUESTRIAN FACILITY; LYNNE MACLEAN, A/K/A M. LYNNE GARNETT; AND HAWLEY H. MACLEAN, Res onde

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA CHELSEA FLINT, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 74709 Appellant, vs. FRANKTOWN MEADOWS, INC.,D/B/A FILED FRANKTOWN MEADOWS EQUESTRIAN FACILITY; LYNNE MACLEAN, A/K/A M. LYNNE GARNETT; AND HAWLEY H. MACLEAN, Res onde

FLAUM, Circuit Judge, with whom BAUER, Chief Judge, and HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr. and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, join, concurring. I believe that there are distinct benefits to be gained from a de novo review of a district court’s determination that a paper is frivolous within the meaning of Rule 11, and I further believe that such a review is a wise investment of appellate resources. However, because I