Cases

Snead, J., delivered the opinion of the court. On December 10, 1959, the city of Roanoke, pursuant to the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 8, of the Code of 1950, as amended, instituted annexation proceedings against the county of Roanoke. Roanoke County Sanitation Authority was made a party defendant. *159

Chapter 7 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER David R. Duncan, Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Price, Pyles, Dangle, Parmer & Rooks, P.C. (“PPDPR”) on May 8, 2014, and a supplement thereto filed on June 6, 2014. Also before the

388 F.Supp.2d 565 (2005) Janet L. HERRON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, Defendants. No. CIV. WDQ-04-1977. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Northern Division. September 21, 2005. *566 *567 Phillip F. Scheibe, Greiber and Scheibe, Millersville, M

SIXTH DIVISION December 11, 2009 Nos. 1-07-3566, 1-08-0702, 1-08-0746, 1-08-1373, 1-08-1982, 1-08-1983, 1-08-2151, and 1-08-2152 (Cons.) JOSEPH M. GAMBINO, Independent Administrator ) Appeal from the of the Estate of Joseph J. Gambino, and NORTH STAR ) Circuit Court of TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee u/t/a Nos. 13534, 2

CLAY, Circuit Judge The League of Women Voters of Michigan ("League"), numerous League members ("League Plaintiffs"), and several Democratic voters ("Individual Plaintiffs") bring suit against Jocelyn Benson, the Michigan Secretary of State in her official capacity, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging

OPINION MAY, Judge. The City of East Chicago (“East Chicago”) appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment and the dismissal of most of its counterclaims and cross-claims against the East Chicago Community Development Foundation and the Twin City Education Foundation (collectively “the Foundations”) and East Chicago Second Century, Inc. (“Second Century”). It also asserts the trial court should n

922 N.E.2d 380 (2009) Joseph M. GAMBINO, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Joseph J. Gambino, and North Star Trust Company, as Trustee u/t/a Nos. 13534, 23985, 23994, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants and Counter-Defendants, v. BOULEVARD MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Title America, Inc., W.W. Funding, L.L.C., Dennis D. Koonce and Stephen Wolf, Defendants and Counterplaintiffs-Appellants (Washington Mutual Bank, a Federal Association, and Pl

Chief Justice RABNER, concurring. By order dated September 8, 2010, the Presiding Judge for Administration of the Appellate Division, the Honorable Edwin H. Stern, was temporarily assigned to the Supreme Court until further order. As a result, he participated in the resolution of this matter and authored the majority opinion. Article VI, Section II, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constituti

203 Va. 582 (1962) W. STIRLING KING v. EDMUND W. HENING, JR., GUS EDWARD MITCHELL, JR., AND JOHN D. BUTZNER, JR., JUDGES, ETC.; AND WILLIAM OLD, VINCENT L. SEXTON, JR., AND ELLIOTT MARSHALL, JUDGES, ETC. Record No. 5469. Supreme Court of Virginia. June 11, 1962. Present, All the Justices. 1. Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy. The writ does not issue as

449 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 99-2496(GK). United States Distri

459 F.2d 1093 Curtis HOLT, Sr., Appellee,v.CITY OF RICHMOND et al., Appellants.Curtis HOLT, Sr., Appellant,v.CITY OF RICHMOND et al., Appellees. Nos. 71-2185, 71-2186. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit. Argued Feb. 10, 1972.Decided May 3, 1972.Certiorari Denied June 26, 1972.See 92 S.Ct. 2510.

83 N.J. Super. 323 (1964) 199 A.2d 673 TOWNSHIP OF SCOTCH PLAINS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; PRESTON L. TALLEY, II AND HELEN K. TALLEY, HIS WIFE; HENRY A. MILNE AND IDA D. MILNE, HIS WIFE; EVERETT O. SIEGELE AND JESSIE S. SIEGELE, HIS WIFE; SARAH P. McINTOSH AND JOSEPH C. McINTOSH, HER HUSBAND; FREDERICK NEUMAN AND ROSLYN NEUMAN, HIS WIFE; RUSSELL N. CLARK AND MARGARET S. CLARK, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v

447 B.R. 475 (2009) In re CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., et al., Debtors. No. 08-35653. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. February 12, 2009. Robin S. Abramowitz, Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville, NY, for *476 Bond Circuit VIII Delaware Business Trust. Angela Sheffler Abreu, McCarter

Rosellini, J. Egil Krogh, Jr., was admitted by this court to the practice of law in the state of Washington on September 20,1968. On February 4,1974, he was suspended as a result of his having been convicted of a felony, and on *463February 19, 1974, a formal complaint was filed by the president of the Washington State Bar Association containing a single item.

MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not

MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not

MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al, (the “Debtors,” or “Circuit City”) filed these bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).1 The Debtors’ bankruptcy cases were consolidated for joint administration pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Fed

Bland, Chancellor. Before we proceed to the consideration of this case, it may be well, for the better understanding of the whole matter, to advert to the law as it before stood, as well as to some of the special estate acts, which the General Assembly had been induced to pass in relation to similar cases before the passage of the general acts under which this case has been brought before the court. Amon