Cases

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District AIRIKA DAWN HIBBS AND JAMES ) HIBBS, ) ) WD82215 Consolidated with Appellants, ) WD82269 ) v. ) OPINION FILED:

254 Ga. 107 (1985) 326 S.E.2d 769 IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS E. NAVE. SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY NO. 365. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided March 15, 1985. William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, George E. Hibbs, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia. PER CURIAM. Thomas E. Nave, an assistant district attorney, wa

Opinion GILBERT, P. J. An automobile insurance policy allows the insurer the option to pay for damages to an insured vehicle or to repair it. We conclude that the insurer satisfies its contractual obligation when it elects to repair, although the insured refuses to authorize the repairs. The insurer may be liable in bad faith, however, when it pays for repairs not authorized by the insured, a

ROY L. RICHTER, Presiding Judge. Steve Hibbs (“Plaintiff’) appeals after summary judgment was entered against him, on Plaintiffs Petition against Brian Berger (“Berger”) and Wood Nuts, Inc. (“Wood Nuts”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs Petition requests the court to pierce the corporate veil, and declare a tortious interference with a business relationship, a civil conspirac

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION ONE STEVE HIBBS, ) No. ED100114 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Jefferson County vs. ) )

420 F.Supp. 1365 (1976) UNITED STATES of America v. Charles C. HIBBS and Fairhill Company, Inc. Civ. A. No. 75-501. United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. October 21, 1976. *1366 Dennis C. Egan, Civil Div., Fraud Section, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Thomas B. Rutter, Philadelphia, Pa., for

258 Ga. 377 (1988) 369 S.E.2d 901 IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS E. NAVE. SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY NO. 365 Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided July 6, 1988. William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, George E. Hibbs, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia. PER CURIAM. Thomas E. Nave was removed from the practice of law b

542 U.S. 88 (2004) HIBBS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. WINN ET AL. No. 02-1809. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 20, 2004. Decided June 14, 2004. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. *89 *90

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Our Lady's Inn, the Archdiocesan Elementary Schools of St. Louis, O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, and Frank O'Brien, Jr. (ECF No. 13), and the cross motion for summary judgment filed Defendant City of St. Louis (ECF No. 20). The matter has been extensively briefed and is ready for disposition. For

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal Action No. 17-194 (RDM) DAVID LEE THOMAS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant David Lee Thomas is charged in a fourteen-count indictment with crimes relating to a series of armed robberies. Five counts of th

*744Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 makes explicit the congressional intent to invoke §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate state sovereign immunity and allow suits for money damages in federal courts. Ante, at 726-727, and n. 1. The specific question is

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0318p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DONALD FREED, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ │

Flaum, Circuit Judge. *526 Susan Nielen-Thomas, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a complaint in Wisconsin state court alleging she and other class members were defrauded by their investment advisor. Defendants removed the case to federal court. They then argued the

11 Ill. App.2d 310 (1956) 137 N.E.2d 117 Jesse M. Thomas, Florence Thomas, Betty Lou Thomas, a Minor, by Jesse M. Thomas, her Father and Next Friend, Jesse M. Thomas, Administrator of Estate of Charles Ray Thomas, Deceased, and Jesse M. Thomas, Administrator of Estate of Vickie Lee Thomas, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Andy Edwin Smith, and Corrine Wilson, Defendants-Appellants. Gen. No. 10,071.<

Case: 19-60133 Document: 00515457870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-60133 FILED

538 U.S. 1 (2003) NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ET AL., PETITIONERSv.WILLIAM HIBBS ET AL. No. 01-1368. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 15, 2003. Decided May 27, 2003. Respondent Hibbs (hereinafter respondent), an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resour

The principal question presented for determination is: May a municipal corporation of the third class proceed under what is commonly known as the Jones-Munger law (Law 1933, p. 425 et seq., S.B. 94) in the sale of real estate for the collection of delinquent taxes? The former owners, Thomas H. Gilmore and others, appellants here, instituted this action to quiet title to certain real estate situate in Carthage (a municipality of the third class), Jasper County, Missouri, against Frank M. Hibbs

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18-2875 SUSAN NIELEN-THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONCORDE INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0081p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ 24-1442 │ THOMAS N. REICHERT; STU

MEMORANDUM ** Christopher Hibbs Hartley appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging the constitutionality of procedures by which defendants obtain warrants against and provide court appearance notification to defendants in criminal misdemeanor cases. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, and we may affirm on any proper groun