Cases

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-3797 ____________ QUINTEZ TALLEY, Appellant v. MAJOR CLARK; LAURA BANTA; M. NASH; THOMAS GRENEVICH; GEORGE ANDRAKA; SGT. WORTH; SGT. BISSELL; C/O BANGGERT; C/O MARTIN; C/O HAYES; C/O MARTINEZ; C/O VOURHEES; C/O BROWN; SGT

By Judge Everett A. Martin, Jr. The infant plaintiff suffered injuries on August 13, 2002, while removing an orthodontic device her dentists prescribed for her. At the time of her injury, she was more than eight years of age. Her next friend filed the motion for judgment on July 29,2004, naming as defendants Dr. Anthony W. Savage and Drs. Savage, Sabol & Visser, Ltd. (the “corporation”), the corporation employing Dr. Savag

31 F.Supp.2d 980 (1999) Darwin SAVAGE and Laura Savage, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. DANEK MEDICAL, INC., Defendant. No. 95-1339-CIV-T-26A. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. January 14, 1999. Scott Charlton, Clark, Charlton, Martino & Borders, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Darwin Savage, Laura Savage, his wife, plaintiffs. Edward W. Gerecke,

849 P.2d 1073 (1992) 115 N.M. 250 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee Savage, Defendant-Appellant. No. 13,277. Court of Appeals of New Mexico. December 1, 1992. Certiorari Granted February 24, 1993. *1075 Tom Udall, Atty. Gen., Joel K. Jacobsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa

Harrison, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This suit was brought to recover on a policy of insurance issued by the defendant company, insuring against loss by fire a certain building in the county of Louisa, used at the time as a store for general merchandise purposes. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff to which this writ of error was awarded. The first assignme

135 F.3d 291 48 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 883 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Norman Harrington WILSON, a/k/a Stormin Norman, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.William David WILSON, a/k/a Pudgie, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.William Correy TALLEY, a/k/a Rat Rat, Defendant-Appellant. N

McFADDEN, Judge. Joan and John Hendley sued Glenn Evans, M.D., andhis employer, Valdosta Medical Clinic, RC. (the defendants), for medical malpractice. The Hendleys contend that Joan Hendley suffered a vessel collapse during a medical procedure performed by Dr. Evans. They contend that Joan Hendley sustained brain damage and other physical injuries as a result of acts and omissions of Dr. Evans and of hospital personnel who

274 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2001) DANIEL ADAMS; ROBERT C. ADKISSON; THOMAS W. ADLER; MATTHEW ALBRIGHT; KANYIA J. ANDERSON; BRADLEY D. ANTONS; LONNIE E. ARTIS; JAMES S. BAILIE; JOHN BANKS; JAMES R. BARKER; KAREN MARIE BARNES; CHARLENE A. BEAHM; JAMES T. BLOUNT; WILLIAM BRADY; LARRY D. BRENEMAN; FREDERICK M. BROCCOLO; MICHAEL B. CARDEN; WILLIAM R. CARMAN; WILLIAM H. CARROLL; MARC W. CHADWICK; DAVID CHERESKIN; ROBERT E. CHERRY; RICHARD CHILDRESS; MARK COLE

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JOHN S. DALIS, Bankruptcy Judge. This matter comes before me on the amended motion for summary judgment by Defendants Kenneth E, Futch and Savage & Turner, P.C.1 (“Attorneys”)2. The *565first issue raised is whe

BARNES, Presiding Judge. This suit arose after ALR Oglethorpe, LLC, bought two parcels of land and then discovered after the closing that one of the parcels was still burdened by a recorded access easement. ALR and five individuals who had invested in related limited liability companies 1 (collectively, ALR) sued C. Geral

LOLLEY, J. 11 Holland Byrd appeals the judgment of the 26th Judicial District Court, Parish of Bossier, State of Louisiana, wherein the trial court granted Colony Insurance Company’s (“Colony”) motion for summary *1270judgment dismissing Byrd’s claim against Colony. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. FACTS

SALTER, J. Kristen Toomey seeks a writ of certiora-ri quashing a circuit court protective order preventing the deposition of two witnesses noticed by the petitioner in an effort to preserve their testimony. We grant the petition and quash the order. 1 In the underlying case, The Northern Trust Comp

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0030p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ CAMERON JOSEPH COOPER, │ Plaintiff-Appell

McFee v. Presley, 2022 NCBC 33. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 21 CVS 18665 JACQUELINE S. MCFEE and SAVAGE MCFEE, INC., Plaintiffs, v. ORDER AND OPINION ON WILLIAM C. PRESLEY; BILL T. WILLIAM C. PRESLEY AND C. STACKS; SABR LEME, INC.

POSNER, Circuit Judge. The defendant, Watts, was convicted by a jury of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3). He was sentenced to five years in prison (half the statutory maximum for his offense). He challenges the conviction and sentence on a variety of grounds, some too slight to require extended, or even any, discu

Kurt S. Odenwald, Presiding Judge Introduction Isadore Glover .(“Glover”) appeals from the judgment of the- motion court denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Glover pleaded guilty to three counts of burglary in -the second degree, one

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0074p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KASSI TCHANKPA, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ │

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Thomas A. Varían, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This civil action is before the Court on the following motions: (1) plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Affirmative Defense Alleging the EEOC Failed to Conciliate in Good Faith [Doc. 24]; (2) defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 28]; (3) plaintiff and intervening plaintiffs (hereinaf

Winchester, J., dissenting: ¶1 I dissent. I would allow the people to exercise their constitutional right of referendum. The proponents of this referendum are proposing that the people of the State of Oklahoma be allowed to decide whether to approve or disapprove legislation passed within the last 90 days by the State Legislature. The majority of signatures will likely come from those opposing the legislation. Nevertheless, the s

207 S.W.3d 725 (2006) Travis MOORE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent. No. 27510. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two. December 13, 2006. *727 S. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cecily L. Daller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferso