Cases

689 F.Supp.2d 1250 (2010) Lakwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Ben CURRY,[1] Warden, Correctional Training Facility, Soledad, Respondent. No. 2:08-cv-00211-JKS. United States District Court, E.D. California. January 14, 2010. *1251 Lakwinder Singh, Soledad, CA, pro se. Paul Arvin Bernardino, California Attorney Gener

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ASPEN, District Judge: Currently before the Court are objections by plaintiff Harjit Singh’s former attorneys Joseph Marconi and Douglas Morrison (“Marconi & Morrison”) and defendants Arthur Curry, Christine Curry, Sukhjit Gill, Barry H. Greenburg and Nathan’s Deli, Inc. (“defendants”) to Magistrate James T. Balog’s Report and Recommendation on defendants’ motion for sanctions u

667 F.Supp. 603 (1987) Harjit SINGH, Plaintiff, v. Arthur J. CURRY, Christine Curry, Sukhjit Gill, Barry H. Greenburg and Nathan's Deli, Inc., Defendants. No. 86 C 8433. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. August 17, 1987. *604 Donald L. Johnson, Johnson & Schwartz, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Edward A.

DOYLE, Presiding Judge. This appeal arises from the grant of a motion for directed verdict in favor of Sonu G. Singh, M.D., and Peach State Nephrology, Inc., in a medical malpractice action filed by Herbert Moore, individually and as the administrator of the Estate of Rosemary Moore. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. A directed verdict is authorized only when there is no conflict in the evide

866 F.2d 432 Singh (Harjit)v.Curry (Arthur J.) NO. 88-1688 United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit. DEC 08, 1988 Appeal From: N.D.Ill.,122 F.R.D. 27 1 VACATED AND REMANDED.

People v Curry (2021 NY Slip Op 01860) People v Curry 2021 NY Slip Op 01860 Decided on March 25, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431

Matter of Curry v Hagler (2024 NY Slip Op 04903) Matter of Curry v Hagler 2024 NY Slip Op 04903 Decided on October 08, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 43

People v Curry (2021 NY Slip Op 01860) People v Curry 2021 NY Slip Op 01860 Decided on March 25, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0054p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaint

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 23-1778 Filed April 9, 2025 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RUDY SINGH, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Bethany Currie, Judge. A defendant appeals his convictions, arguing several improper statements warrant a new trial and ins

Davinder Singh v. State of Maryland, No. 36, September Term, 2025. Opinion by Eaves, J. INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION – REASONABLENESS – NO DE FACTO ARREST The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the placement of an individual in a nearby patrol car does not per se transform a lawful investigatory detention into a de facto arrest. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the investigative detention of the petitioner was reasonable where the record showed that the petition

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. In a case of first impression in this circuit, we must review the application of the Health Care Quality Immunity Act (HCQIA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101-11152, to the contention of Dr. Kunwar Singh that defendants Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. (“Blue Cross”) and Dr. Benjamin White (as Blue Cross’s auditor) violated Dr. Singh’s rights in numerous ways

HANS J. LILJEBERG, Judge. ^Defendant appeals her conviction and sentence for attempted possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence, and we remand the case for correction of the Uniform Commitment Order. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In October of 2012, defendant, Kristin H. Curry, was charged by bill of

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0130p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaint

Opinion HOCH, J. A jury convicted defendant Vinesh Kumar Singh of inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a cohabitant. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).)1 The jury also found true the allegations that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)) and personally used a deadly weapo

182 F.Supp.2d 164 (2001) Kunwar S.P. SINGH, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., and Benjamin W. White, Defendants. No. 99-CV-11183-MEL. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. October 4, 2001. *165 *166 *167

The appellant was prosecuted under an information and complaint charging him with unlawfully practicing medicine under the act of the Thirtieth Legislature. 1. Appellant by his first bill of exception raises the question of the sufficiency of the information. He complains that the complaint is insufficient because it does not contain the name of the affiant in the body thereof. The name of the affiant is at the bottom of the affidavit and was the party making the same, with the jurat o

635 F.3d 271 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert VALLAR, Tyrail Curry, Amador Hernandez, and Eladio Pedroza, Sr., Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 07-3641, 08-1361, 08-3888, 09-3484. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued October 26, 2010. Decided February 14, 2011. *276 Jen

RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Plaintiff Biscotti, Inc.'s ("Biscotti") Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and New Trial (the "Motion") (Dkt. No. 318). Having considered the Motion, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes that the Motion should be and hereby is DENIED . I. Background A. The

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge. The following motions are before the Court: • Apple’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b). or, in the alternative, for a New Trial or a Remittitur (Docket No. 623); • VirnetX’s Motion for Post-Verdict Damages to the Time of Judgment, Pre-Judgment Interest, and Post-