Cases

638 F.2d 1137 24 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1793,25 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,525Chester W. SETSER, Appellant,v.NOVACK INVESTMENT COMPANY d/b/a Budig Western Trucking andAlvin S. Novack, Appellees. No. 80-1100. United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 13, 1980.Decided Jan. 26, 1981.

BENTON, Circuit Judge. A jury found Tiffany Rene Morris guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and five counts of wire fraud, in violation.of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349. Morris appeals the district court’s 1 denials of: (1) her motion for judgment of acquittal, (2) her motion to exclude voicemail messages, (3) a new

BY JUDGE MARK S. DAVIS This matter is before the Court on the “Motion for Protective Order of Felix M. Kirven, M.D.,” a non-party to this action, requesting that the Court quash a witness subpoena served on him. Dr. Kirven also requests an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-271.1, alleging that the subpoena was filed for an improper purpose. The factual and procedural background of the case, discussion of t

FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 11, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court VICKIE SCHMIDT PARSON; PATRICIA SCALES;

ORDER AND RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA I. INTRODUCTION Lately pregnant, a long-term employee, a certain store’s co-director, asks her direct supervisor for a restructured set of duties, i.e. an accommodation of responsibilities, none deemed “essential” or “primary.” Her doctor advises

ELMO B. HUNTER, District Judge. This is an appeal from a final judgment entered below against the appellant Chester Setser and in favor of appellees Novack Investment Co. d/b/a Budig Western Trucking Co. and Alvin S. Novack.1 For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for jury trial. Appellant brought his action alleging only violations of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 [§ 1981].

474 F.Supp. 704 (1979) Tammy Lane HUEMMER v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF OCEAN CITY et al. Civ. No. Y-78-991. United States District Court, D. Maryland. July 9, 1979. *705 Peter Ayers Wimbrow, III, Ocean City, Md., for plaintiff. Thomas Waxter, Jr. and Bruce I. Rothschild, Baltimore, Md., for defendants the Mayor and City Co

The majority holds the trial court erred in sustaining the State's objection to a question propounded by the defense on cross-examination of the Chief of Police at folio 238 as argumentative. Appellant's assignments of error challenge only errors in folios 65-88, 193, 202, 353-358, 538-542, 555-556, 594. Thus, no assignment of error challenges this ruling. The answer was already given, was not stricken and the context and further extended cross-examination disclose no prejudicia

Mr. Justice Frankfurter announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice Stewart joins. Once again the Court is confronted with the painful duty of sitting in judgment on a State’s conviction for murder, after a jury’s verdict was found flawless by the State’s highest court, in order to determine whether the *569defendant’s confe

BALDWIN, J. By the true construction of the lease between the heirs of Rush and the appellee Moyers, the latter was to be entitled to a waygoing crop, whether the term should expire by efflux of time, or at the end of a previous year, by reason of the event contemplated and provided for by the parties. This is apparent from the stipulation, that Moyers was not to farm “more than one half of the cleared land in a year,” and that

BALDWIN, J. By the true construction of the lease between the heirs of Rush and the appellee Moyers, the latter was to be entitled to a waygoing crop, whether the term should expire by efflux of time, or at the end of a previous year, by reason of the event contemplated and provided for by the parties. This is apparent from the stipulation, that Moyers was not to farm “more than one half of the cleared land in a year,” and that

BALDWIN, J. By the true construction of the lease between the heirs of Rush and the appellee Moyers, the latter was to be entitled to a waygoing crop, whether the term should expire by efflux of time, or at the end of a previous year, by reason of the event contemplated and provided for by the parties. This is apparent from the stipulation, that Moyers was not to farm “more than one half of the cleared land in a year,” and that

CARRINGTON, J. The first point relied upon by the appellant’s counsel was, that the writing signed “Samuel Mathews” could not be considered as a patent, and could not transfer the right of the crown to the'lands therein described. It is certainly very informal, as it might well be expected to be at a time, when this country was in its infancy. But I am satisfied, that it possesses all the substantial parts of a grant, and that i

CARRINGTON, J. The first point relied upon by the appellant’s counsel was, that the writing signed “Samuel Mathews” could not be considered as a patent, and could not transfer the right of the crown to the'lands therein described. It is certainly very informal, as it might well be expected to be at a time, when this country was in its infancy. But I am satisfied, that it possesses all the substantial parts of a grant, and that i

CARRINGTON, J. The first point relied upon by the appellant’s counsel was, that the writing signed “Samuel Mathews” could not be considered as a patent, and could not transfer the right of the crown to the'lands therein described. It is certainly very informal, as it might well be expected to be at a time, when this country was in its infancy. But I am satisfied, that it possesses all the substantial parts of a grant, and that i