Cases

914 F.2d 268 Powellv.Bear, Stearns & Company*** NO. 89-6152 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. AUG 13, 1990 Appeal From: S.D.Fla., 108 B.R. 343 1 AFFIRMED.

899 F.2d 21 Bear Stearns & Co.v.Powell** NO. 87-5883 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. MAR 05, 1990 1 Appeal From: S.D.Fla. 2

95 B.R. 236 (1989) In re Charles M. POWELL, Debtor. BEAR, STEARNS & CO., Plaintiff, v. Charles M. POWELL, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 88-00596-BKC-SMW, Adv. No. 88-0227-BKC-SMW-A. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. January 17, 1989. *237 Raul A. Cuervo, Tew Jorden Schulte & Beasley, Miami, Fla., for Creditor

108 B.R. 343 (1989) In re Charles M. POWELL, Debtor. BEAR, STEARNS & CO., Plaintiff, v. Charles M. POWELL, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 89-6276-Civ. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. October 4, 1989. *344 Chad F. Pugatch, Richard Siegmeister, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for plaintiff. Raul A. Cuervo, Tew Jorden S

ALLEN, Chancellor. The pending motions to enjoin a proposed recapitalization of Anderson, Clayton & Co. (the “Company”) presently scheduled to be consummated today places in apparent opposition two important stockholder interests. On plaintiffs’ view of the case this Court must now act to protect an interest each shareholder of the Company has in maximizing the present value of his or her stock-holdings.

23 A.3d 137 (2011) Julia STEARNS, Respondent Below, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, and Court Appointed Special Advocate, Petitioners Below, Appellees. Julia Stearns, Respondent Below, Appellant, v. Division Of Family Services, and Court Appointed Special Advocate, Petitioners Below, Appellees. Nos. 754, 2010, 755, 2010. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitt

489 N.E.2d 146 (1986) In re SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO John STEARNS, Appellant (Petitioner below), v. Helen J. ZULKA, et al., Appellees (Respondents/Defendants below). Colby Vollmer, et al., Plaintiffs below, v. Helen J. Zulka, et al., Appellees (Defendants below). No. 3-785 A 185. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District. February 26, 1986.

BLATT, Senior Judge. David M. Powell (claimant) appeals here from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed the referee’s decision dismissing his Claim Petition for failing to notify the employer (Bechtel Power Corp., et al.) of his injury within 120 days of its occurrence as required by Section 311 of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act.1

265 S.W.3d 16 (2008) ENVIROPOWER, L.L.C., Appellant, v. BEAR, STEARNS & CO., INC., Appellee. No. 01-04-01111-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). February 21, 2008. *18 Kevin D. Jewell, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, Houston, TX, for Appellant. John C. Allen, John C. Allen, P.C., Ho

OPINION SWEET, District Judge. ' The defendants The Bear Stearns Companies LLC (F/K/A The Bear Stearns Companies Inc.) (“Bear Stearns”), Alan D. Schwartz, Samuel L. Molinaro, James Cayne, and Warren Spector (the “Individual Defendants”) (collectively, the “Bear Stearns Defendants”) and Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) (collectively, with the Bear Stearns Defendants, the “Defendants”) have mo

Opinion issued February 21, 2008 In The Court of Appeals</

Defendant appeals from his conviction in a jury trial of aggravated burglary and three counts of aggravated robbery. He argues that the trial court permitted improper examination of two state witnesses by the prosecutor, and that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.1 Although we do note certain irregularities in the examination of those two witnesses, we find that they were not sufficiently prejudicial to merit reversal.

504 F.Supp. 998 (1980) Jerry R. STEARNS, Plaintiff, v. Coy D. ESTES, etc., et al., Defendants. No. CV 80-4127-AWT. United States District Court, C. D. California. December 17, 1980. Ralph B. Saltsman, Marina Del Rey, Cal., for plaintiff. John Liebert, Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND OR

381 Pa. 405 (1955) Powell v. Shepard, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 21, 1955. April 18, 1955. *406 Before STERN, C.J., STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ. Edward Friedman, Deputy Attorney General, with him Colbert C. McClain, Special Counsel, and Herbert B. Cohe

375 Pa. 60 (1953) Powell v. Risser, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued April 15, 1953. October 5, 1953. *61 Before STERN, C.J., STEARNE, JONES, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ. Harold A. Butz, with him Kenneth H. Koch, Philip H. Strubing, Butz, Steckel, Hudders & Rupp, and Evans, Bayard

572 F.Supp. 667 (1983) Russell C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. BEAR STEARNS & COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. C82-2059A. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. September 30, 1983. *668 *669 J. Boyd Page, Cofer, Beauchamp, Hawes & Brown, Atlanta, Ga., for plaint

497 So.2d 1188 (1986) STATE of Florida, et al., Appellants, v. Wade POWELL, et Ux., et al., Appellees. No. 67755. Supreme Court of Florida. October 30, 1986. Rehearing Denied December 22, 1986. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Kenneth McLaughlin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for State of Florida. Alan C. Sundberg, George N. Meros, Jr. and F. Towns

644 F.Supp. 645 (1986) Floyd B. RHOADES, Jr. and Audrey Rhoades, Plaintiffs, v. William T. POWELL, et al., Defendants. No. CV-F-85-549 REC. United States District Court, E.D. California. September 5, 1986. *646 *647 *648 *649</

794 F.Supp. 1265 (1992) POMPANO-WINDY CITY PARTNERS, LTD., East Wind Associates, LTD. and Steven J. Lawrence, Plaintiffs, v. BEAR STEARNS & CO., INC., Options Clearing Corp., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., Jerry Canning, Richard Harriton and William Gangi, Defendants. Nos. 87 Civ. 7560 (PKL), 88 Civ. 7159 (PKL). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 4, 19

PER CURIAM. The sole question presented by this case is whether in proceedings under G. S. 1894, c. 76, to enforce the- individual liability of stockholders, an attachment will lie against the property of one óf the stockholders against whom such proceedings are pending. We are equally divided on the question, justice LEWIS having been of counsel and not sitting, and as this results in an affirmance, a discussion thereof can