Cases

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-08-00778-CV <

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] Tiffany F. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland, Powers, J .) finding circumstances of jeopardy to her newborn child's health and welfare pursuant to § 4035(4-A) (2017). She argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding of jeopardy. Because the record evidence supports the court's finding and determination of jeopardy, we affirm the judgment.

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The plaintiff, Kristin Rightnour, brings this action against her former employer, Tiffany and Company ("Tiffany" or "the defendant"), alleging that Tiffany violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. ("Title VII")

CASE DISPOSITION OF PETITION TO WISCONSIN SUPREME COURTPetition for Review Denied.

OPINION AND ORDER JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The plaintiff, Kristin Rightnour, sued Tiffany and Company (“Tiffany”) for religious discrimination and retaliation under federal and local law. Tiffany petitions for an order to stay this action and compel the plaintiff to arbitrate the dispute pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.

DANZELLE Q. MOSES * NO. 2025-C-0229 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2023-KA-0540 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL CHRISTOPHER M * ALEXANDER FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM C

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge. Plaintiff Leonardo Jose Fields (“Plaintiff’) filed this pro se lawsuit against Defendants on January 8, 2010, alleging violations of his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2, 2000e-3 (“Title VII”). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 12,

563 F.Supp. 35 (1982) ALEXANDER GRANT & COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TIFFANY INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 79-191C(3). United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D. December 30, 1982. On Counterclaims March 30, 1983. *36 Armstrong, Teasdale, Kramer & Vaughan, Walter M. Clark, Catherine D. Perry,

104 B.R. 438 (1989) In re TIFFANY SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LTD., Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 88-2828-6S1. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. April 7, 1989. Order Denying Motion for Rehearing and to Amend Order May 8, 1989. *439 Robert C. Young, Orlando, Fla., for Tiffany Square Associates, Ltd., debtor.

Matter of Amollyah B. (Tiffany R.) (2018 NY Slip Op 03273) Matter of Amollyah B. (Tiffany R.) 2018 NY Slip Op 03273 Decided on May 4, 2018 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting

PER CURIAM. The outcome of this case is controlled by our contemporaneously issued opinion in Alexander v. Walker, 435 S.W.3d 789, 2014 WL 2535949 (Tex.2014) (per curiam). Though the court of appeals correctly held that the respondent was entitled to dismissal of the tort claims asserted against him, the court’s reasoning is incongruous with Alexand

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 1021 KA 15-00042 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND CURRAN, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TIFFANY J. ERNST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. DAVID P. ELKOVITCH, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (BRIAN T. LEEDS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge. By order of the Supreme Court, the appeal of Alexander Grant and Company is before us again for further consideration in light of the recent decisions in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985), and American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Haroco, Inc., — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 3291,

MEMORANDUM HUNGATE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on class plaintiffs’ and defendant Alexander Grant & Company’s separate requests for contin*334uance of the present trial setting. On Monday, December 23, 1985, the Court heard oral argument on these requests. Plaintiffs Kleinfeld generally seek a continuance

OSCN Found Document:ALEXANDER v. ALEXANDER OSCN navigation Home Courts Court Dockets Legal Research

11/28/2018 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 9, 2018 Session ROY FRANKS, ET AL. v. TIFFANY SYKES, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C-16-171 Kyle Atkins, Judge ___________________________________

WINCHESTER, J, P1 Both parties in this matter sought dissolution of their marriage on grounds of incompatibility. The wife informed the trial court that she was terminally ill and wanted to finalize the devorce before her death as she wished to leave her part of the estate to her daughters. The judge granted the parties the divorce, and filed a Court Minute memorializing his ruling. The

[Cite as Alexander v. Davis, 2022-Ohio-2345.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO TERESA ALEXANDER & DANIEL : APPEAL NO. C-210461 DETERS, Coadministrators of the TRIAL NO. A-1904890 Estate of Jordan Alexander, Plaintiffs-Appellants, : O P I N I O N. v

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge. Peskind’s law holds: When there is uncertainty about where to file a security interest in order to perfect it, file everywhere. 1 This case illustrates the wisdom of that rule. In 1994, a deed of trust securing Indian trust land was recorded in