Cases

813 F.Supp. 1382 (1993) William H. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Nicholas F. BRADY, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, and Stephen E. Higgins, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 92-C-478. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. February 24, 1993. *1383 Robert A. Kennedy, Jr., Kennedy Law O

744 F.Supp. 925 (1990) Teresa SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Nicholas BRADY, Secretary of the Treasury; Internal Revenue Service; Lawrence Gibbs, Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Frank Miceli, San Francisco District Director of the Internal Revenue Service, Defendants. No. C-89-1535 FMS. United States District Court, N.D. California. August 8, 1990. Priscilla Winslow, Martin

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant James H. Brady, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment entered January 12, 2017 dismissing his complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and denying him leave to amend his complaint, and its subsequent order entered February 3, 2017 imposing a filing injunction. Brady sued defendants-appellees, who are the law

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered August 4, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he dove into the shallow end of an in-ground r

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 04-3421 JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BRADY SMITH, DIANNE SHEPARD, KATHRYN FLETCHER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo

56 S.W.3d 523 (2001) Mazzie BRADY, et al. v. Margaret Moore SMITH, et al. Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section, at Knoxville. April 6, 2001. Permission to Appeal Denied September 17, 2001. *524 William E. Phillips, Rogersville, TN, for appellants, Mazzie Brady and Dora Penley. Lee Dan Stone, III, Tazewell, TN, fo

OPINION Terry Jennings, Justice Appellants, Terry Neff and Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant, Weather-ford International, Ltd., a Swiss Corporation (‘Weatherford”), challenge the trial court’s orders dismissing them claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and corporate waste against appellees, Nicholas F. Brady, David J. Butters, William E. Mac

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered August 4, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he dove into the shallow end of an in-ground r

BEDSWORTH, J. In 1925, Merck Pharmaceuticals sent a letter to Morris Fishbein, chairman of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The letter said, "We have been recently startled by the unexplainable demand on the part of our customers for Sodium Borate C. P. Powder. From our representatives, we have learned that a Dr. Brinkley, of Milford, Kansas, has broadcast recommendations for the use of Merck's Sodium Borate C. P. in

Opinion OHTA, J.* This is a coordinated case involving plaintiffs Ernest Brady and David Gibbs (Plaintiffs), * 1 who were diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia allegedly caused by exposure to Safety-Kleen 105 Solvent during the course of

SUMMARY ORDER Appellants Edward and Rosemary Brady appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows. We review the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Celestine v. Mount Vernon Ne

SUMMARY ORDER Appellants Edward and Rosemary Brady appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows. We review the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Celestine v. Mount Vernon Ne

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DENISE CHIANESE, Appellant, v. GREGORY A. BRADY, Appellee. No. 4D14-2480 [August 5, 2015] Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward

OPINION Evelyn V. Keyes, Justice A jury convicted appellant, Brady Craig Koch, Jr., of the Class B misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated — second offense (“DWI”). 1 The trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for one year, suspended for two years. In his sole issue on appea

*521 KISTLER, J. Two petitions 1 have been filed challenging the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 56 (2010). See ORS 250.085(2) (specifying requirements for seeking review of a certified ballot

WARNER, J. In a settlement agreement to a paternity suit, the father, who lived in Texas, agreed that should he default on obligations under the agreement for more than thirty days after written notification, he would consent to Florida jurisdiction of the support issues. The father defaulted, and the mother filed suit in Florida to enforce the agreement and for modification. Although the father neither filed a sworn motion

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-5168.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 22CA17 : v. : : DECISION AND JUDGMENT EDWARD T. SMITH, : ENTRY

*880OPINION OF THE COURT Eileen N. Nadelson, J. People’s Motion to Consolidate Defendant was charged under docket 2006KN0074572 with harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]), and aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.30 [1] [a], [b]). Defendant was charged under docket 2007KN010520 with criminal

COFFEY, Circuit Judge. Concurring in the judgment remanding the case for a new trial and dissenting with respect to the Majority’s Opinion, Section I.B.2. entitled “Admissibility of Brady Smith’s 2001 Conviction for Indecent Solicitation of a Minor.” In my view, Smith’s 2002 conviction for indecent solicitation of a minor over the telephone does not constitute an “offense of sexual assault” under Rule 413(d) of the Federal

Brady v Brady (2021 NY Slip Op 02706) Brady v Brady 2021 NY Slip Op 02706 Decided on April 30, 2021 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.