Cases

— In a proceeding to disqualify Eugene Birnbaum and Samuel Kooper from acting as arbitrators in a dispute between the parties and to appoint substitute arbitrators, the appeal is from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 4, 1974, which granted the application, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 10, 1974, which denied appellant’s motion to renew and rehear the application. Order and judgment affirmed, with one

74 Cal.App.2d 86 (1946) BEN SIEGEL et al., Appellants. v. THOMAS H. A. LEWIS et al., Respondents. Civ. No. 15005. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. One. Apr. 19, 1946. Pacht, Pelton, Warne, Ross & Bernhard, Isaac Pacht, Clore Warne and Bernard Reich for Appellants. Overton, Lyman & Plumb and B. R. Ware for Respondents. YORK,

Pawelic v Siegel (2023 NY Slip Op 05268) Pawelic v Siegel 2023 NY Slip Op 05268 Decided on October 18, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. <

Leyton v Siegel (2023 NY Slip Op 00265) Leyton v Siegel 2023 NY Slip Op 00265 Decided on January 24, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Leyton v Siegel (2023 NY Slip Op 00265) Leyton v Siegel 2023 NY Slip Op 00265 Decided on January 24, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

CAMPBELL, Judge. Harvey Siegel appeals the final judgment of dissolution which awarded the marital home, a one-half interest in certain jointly held mutual funds, and costs and attorney’s fees to Mrs. Siegel. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. The parties married in 1968 and Mrs. Siegel petitioned for dissolution in 1981. Shortly after the marriage, Mr. Siegel, using his own

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2022-1972 _____________________________ SUSAN A. SIEGEL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. J. Layne Smith, Judge. November 9, 2023 PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED

326 S.W.3d 491 (2010) U.S. BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy W. LEWIS and Paula Lewis, Defendants-Respondents. No. SD 30047. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One. October 21, 2010. Motion for Rehearing and Transfer Denied November 16, 2010. Application for Transfer Denied December 21, 2010.

Liu, J. *565 The Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) *323 is California's prescription drug monitoring program. By statute, every prescri

212 B.R. 625 (1997) In re Charles William SPENLER, M.D., Debtor. Charles William SPENLER, M.D., Appellant, v. Alfred H. SIEGEL, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee. BAP Nos. CC-96-1093-JSH, CC-96-1174, CC-96-1422, Bankruptcy No. LA 95-26467 LF. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 23, 1997. Decided August 29, 1997

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line RR. Co., 381 So.2d 229 (Fla.1980); Executive Car & Truck Leasing, Inc. v. DeSerio, 468 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 480 So.2d 1293 (Fla.1985).

Opinion BRUINIERS, J. Attorneys Dan Siegel and Ann Weills represented Nimachia Hernandez in a successful employment discrimination lawsuit in which attorney fees and costs were awarded, pursuant to Government Code section 12965. 1 The total amount of the fee award, plus accrued interest, was paid di

79 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1270 Howard SIEGEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. B115350. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five. November 20, 1998. Review Denied February 24, 1999. *727 Morgan

Rahman v Lewis (2024 NY Slip Op 24211) [*1] Rahman v Lewis 2024 NY Slip Op 24211 Decided on July 24, 2024 Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Bronx County Tovar, J. Published by New York State Law Reporti

SUMMARY ORDER Appellants challenge the order of the District Court denying their motion for a new trial. On appeal, Appellants argue that the District Court abused its discretion in denying their motion for a new trial on the bases that (1) an ex parte freeze order obtained against Appellants by Ap-pellee Lewis’s counsel denied them then-right to a fair trial by (a) restricting funds necessary to litigation of this matter, an

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) LISA A. LEWIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-3431 (FYP) ) JANET L. YE

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MARTIN J. SIEGEL, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 2024-0146-LWW : CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. and : HOWARD LUTNICK, : : Defendants. :

ORDER OF PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. This cause came on for consideration upon the petitioners’ motion for summary judgment. The court, having considered the record and being fully advised in the premises, finds and concludes that petitioners’ motion for summary judgment should be granted in the form of an order for partial summary adjudication. <

Opinion HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. This is the third appeal arising out of a probate matter involving Scott Leach’s (Scott) 1 challenge of the trustee’s (Kendall Kleveland (Kendall)) handling of a trust. In the first appeal, we affirmed the trial court’s final judgment resolving, among other issues, Scot

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J), rendered July 18, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of 30 days, unanimously affirmed. The court properly denied defendant’s application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]). The record supports *246the court’s finding t