Cases

462 A.2d 1140 (1983) Arthur GOOZH, et al., Appellants, v. CAPITOL SOUVENIR CO., INC., et al., Appellees. No. 81-1480. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued June 8, 1983. Decided July 14, 1983. Gary A. Stein, Washington, D.C., with whom Philip N. Margolius and Carla J. Smith, Washington, D.C., were on briefs, for appellants. Peter B. Krauser,

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ONAJE RODNEY SMITH (SC 20600) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js. Syllabus Convicted of various crimes, including first degree robbery, first degree assault, second degree arson, and attempt to commit murder, charged in five cases that were joined for trial, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant, along with G, P, and anoth

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. *441 The defendants here took part in a decade-long scheme surreptitiously to sell tax-free cigarettes, thereby defrauding federal, state, and local governments of more than $ 45 million in tax revenue. The federal government eventually uncovered the scheme and char

676 S.E.2d 750 (2009) SMITH v. The STATE. No. A08A2421. Court of Appeals of Georgia. March 16, 2009. Reconsideration Denied April 3, 2009. *751 Stephen N. Hollomon, Warner Robins, for appellant. Denise D. Fachini, Dist. Atty., Cheri L. Nichols, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee. MILLER, Chief Judge.</

7 So.3d 473 (2009) Corey SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. SC05-703. Supreme Court of Florida. March 19, 2009. *478 Teresa Mary Pooler, Miami, FL, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Carol M. Dittmar, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Appellee. PER

19 P.3d 254 (2001) 130 N.M. 117 2001-NMSC-004 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darcy SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. No. 25,106. Supreme Court of New Mexico. January 23, 2001. *257 Michener Law Firm, L.L.C., Roger E. Michener, Placitas, NM, for Appellant. Patricia A. M

LEHMAN, J. [1] The plaintiff brought suit for the agreed price of postal cards delivered to the defendant. The defendant admitted the cause of action alleged in the complaint, but counterclaimed for damages alleged to have been suffered by the failure of plaintiff to deliver certain lithographic stones in accordance with a certain contract annexed to the answer. At the trial the defendant showed the making

KING, Chief Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant, the United States of America, appeals the district court’s suppression of evidence supporting drug charges brought against Defendants-Ap-pellees Jesse James Smith and Keisha L. Smith. For the following reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s ruling granting Defendants’ motion to suppress and REMAND for further proceedings.

REVISED DECEMBER 14, 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 01-30100 _____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff–Appellant v. JESSE JAMES SMITH; KEISHA L. SMITH Defendants-Appellees _______

791 P.2d 354 (1990) Francis Juanita SMITH, by her guardian, Dennis R. SMITH, Appellant, v. MARCHANT ENTERPRISES, INC., Industrial Indemnity Company of Alaska, Inc., and Alaska Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees. No. S-3060. Supreme Court of Alaska. April 27, 1990. *355 Peter W. Giannini, Law Offices of Giannini & Associat

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The petition in this case asked us to consider two aspects of “statute of limitations” law. One concerns the date upon which a civil action accrues under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the limitations period starts to run. The other concerns “fraudulent concealment,” a doctrine that extends the time for a plaintiff to file suit. In r

612 So.2d 1092 (1992) C & C TRUCKING COMPANY and Bill Lambert v. Fred SMITH. No. 90-CA-0366. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 17, 1992. *1095 John A. Ferrell, Booneville, for appellant. R.K. Houston, Bay Springs, for appellee. Before the court en banc. SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court: This a

OPINION Section 511(a)4 imposes a tax on income received by exempt organizations which is derived from unrelated trade or business activities. Section 513(a)5 defines the term “unrelated trade or business” generally to include any trade or business carried on by an exempt organization, the conduct of which, aside from the organization’s need

A defect inherent in the nature of man is that perversity of spirit which attracts us to spectacles of danger in which our fellow men risk death for our amusement. Although the events in the coliseums of ancient Rome were somewhat different from those held in their modern counterparts, spectators were perhaps subject to similar risks for there must have been occasions when a lion escaped the arena to prowl among the patrons or a gladiator lost control of his weapon to the detriment of

GRAVES, Justice. This appeal is from a judgment of the 61st District Court of Harris County, sitting without a jury, denying appellants not only the construction they sought of the. will of Rosa C. Allen, but also the consequent distribution of the principal of her estate they claimed of right inured — in the accumulated sum of approximately $700,000.00 at the date of this trial below— to appellant, Rosa Allen Williams, and

164 F.Supp. 605 (1958) SMITH & WELTON, Incorporated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 2374. United States District Court E. D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. August 8, 1958. *606 Charles L. Kaufman, T. Howard Spainhour, Norfolk, Va., for plaintiff. L. S. Parsons, Jr., U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va

By the WHOLE COURT. ROGERS, J. Under a mineral lease from the state of Louisiana defendant drilled an oil well in the bed of Black bayou in sec. 13, T. 21 N., R. 15 W., Caddo parish. The well was brought in as a producer, and thereafter plaintiff filed this suit, alleging that he was in actual possession, as owner, of Sec. 12, T. 21 N., R. 15 W., Caddo parish, and that he was the holder of

MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 11]. The Court heard oral argument on July 29, 2011. For the rea*1147sons that follow, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment. II.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order brought by Plaintiff Select Comfort Corporation (“Select Comfort”) against Defendant Mattress Firm Holding Corp., d/b/a Mattress Firm (“Mattress Firm”). (Doc. No. 39.) The motion is not against Defendant Tempur Sealy International, I

*935MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Defendant Mattress Firm Holding Corp.’s, d/b/a Mattress Firm (“Mattress Firm” or “Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Counts Four, Five and Six of Plaintiff Select Comfort Corporation’s (“Select Comfort” or “Plaintiff’) First