Cases

Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL October 7, 2025 564 OCTOBER, 2025 353 Conn. 564 State v. Sharpe STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHAEL SHARPE (SC 20815) Mullins, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Ecker, Alexander and Dannehy, Js. S

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-65V (to be published) ************************* HEIDI SHARPE, as legal representative * Chief Special Master Corcoran of her minor child, L.M., * * *

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-65V (to be published) ************************* HEIDI SHARPE, as legal representative * Special Master Corcoran of her minor child, L.M., * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION McKELVIE, District Judge. This is a fraud and misrepresentation case. Plaintiff Andrew B. Spark alleges that defen*433dants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, and breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing toward plaintiff by including misleading statements in the

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-14-00286-CV FRANCIS WING-SING CHAN APPELLANT V. J. SHELBY SHARPE AND THE APPELLEES LAW OFFICES OF J. SHELBY SHARPE, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, AND KAREN CHANG AND HENRY CHANG

304 N.W.2d 220 (1981) STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. James Earl SHARPE, Appellant. No. 64109. Supreme Court of Iowa. April 15, 1981. *221 J. R. Sokol and Mark R. Lawson, of Sokol & Sokol, Maquoketa, and Harold De Lange II, of Wehr & De Lange, Davenport, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Julie F. Pottorf

143 Cal.App.3d 469 (1983) 192 Cal. Rptr. 16 ROBERT H. SHARPE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; EILEEN L. BERONIO, Real Party in Interest. Docket No. 21851. Court of Appeals of California, Third District. May 31, 1983. *470 COUNSEL Hardy, Erich & Brown, Weintrau

Bird, J. Mr. D. M. Sweeney, of San Francisco, patented an automobile accessory which, for a time, found some favor in the automobile world. He named it the “Master Spark,” and proceeded to manufacture and place it upon the market. It came to the attention of defendant, who was engaged in selling such articles, and he later made an arrangement with Mr. Sweeney, or his associates, to sell it on commission. In June, 1916, while thes

Moore, C. J. The plaintiff is a dealer in automobile *375supplies in the city of Detroit. The defendant is a maker of automobile spark plugs. It sells its products in Detroit through Buhl & Sons, and other distributors. It is the claim of the plaintiff that he bought through Buhl & Sons, during the year 1917, 29,500 spark plugs, , under such ci

Hodges, J. In every application for a new trial a brief of the testimony in the case shall 'be filed by the movant, under the revision and approval of the court. Civil Code, § 6306. Where an order is taken to hear a motion for. a new trial in vacation, the brief of evidence must be presented for approval within the time fixed by the order, or else the motion will be dismissed. Civil Code, § 6090. In this case, no brief of evidenc

POLITZ, Circuit Judge: Hornsby Oil Company, Inc. (Hornsby) sued Champion Spark Plug Company, Inc. (Champion) under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, claiming that Champion unlawfully terminated its distributorship due to its noncompliance with territorial and product restrictions, and monopolized, conspired to monopolize and attempted to monopolize the

114 So.2d 373 (1959) Mary E. FOSTER, Appellant, v. William E. SHARPE and Maxine Sharpe, his wife, Appellees. No. 58-573. District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District. September 8, 1959. *374 McCahill & McKenry, Miami, for appellant. Melvin Schaffer, Miami, for appellees. PEARSON, Judge. The mother

118 Ga. App. 480 (1968) 164 S.E.2d 318 YALE & TOWNE, INC. v. SHARPE et al. 43719. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Argued June 5, 1968. Decided September 3, 1968. Rehearing Denied October 9, 1968. *483 Peek, Whaley, Blackburn & Haldi, J. Corbett Peek, Jr., Glenville

On February 28, 1917, George Spark and wife, residents of South Dakota, entered into a contract with Robert G. Miller, of Falfurrias, whereby the former agreed to purchase 1,329.5 acres of land belonging to Ed. C. Lasater, and situated in Jim Wells and Brooks counties. The price agreed upon was $53,180, or at the rate of $40 an acre, payable $19,942.50 in cash on December 1, 1917, for which Spark gave his note, and the balance of $33,237.50 in 10 equal annual payments, to be evidenced by vend

BYERS, District Judge. Hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The complaint sets forth two claims for relief, the first for infringement of trademark, and the second for unfair competition. The plaintiff is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio, and two of the individual defendants reside in this district, where all three apparently conduct busi

* Corpus Juris-Cyc. References: Appeal and Error, 4CJ, p. 901, n. 1; Sales, 35Cyc, p. 464, n. 90; Findings of trial court on conflicting evidence not disturbed on appeal unless manifestly wrong, see 2 R.C.L. 203; 1 R.C.L. Supp. 442; 4 R.C.L. Supp. 91; 5 R.C.L. Supp. 81; 7 R.C.L. Supp. 37. Bills in chancery were filed by Sellers Motor Company, Incorporated, and J.D. Sellers, as an individual, against Orgill Bros. Hardwar

OPINION By the Court, Douglas, J.: In this appeal, we examine whether preclusive effect should be given to an order, entered by a federal district court sitting in diversity, dismissing a complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. In doing so, we clarify that our holding in Bower *17v. Harrah’s Laughlin,

694 S.E.2d 649 (2010) STAMPS v. JFB PROPERTIES, LLC et al. No. S10Q0041. Supreme Court of Georgia. April 19, 2010. Ashe Rafuse & Hill, William B. Hill, Jr., Joseph C. Sharp, Angela S. Blackwell, Dax E. Lopez, Justin M. Scott, Megan A. Kelly, Atlanta, for appellant. *650 Brinson, Askew, Berry, Seigler, Richardson &

ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the court is defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s (“MetLife”) motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Royal Bradford Keife (“Keife”). Doc. # 136.1 Also before the court is MetLife’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Brenda J. Simon (“Simon”). Doc. #141.