Cases

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperisdenied. Petitioner allowed until October 27, 2014, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

69 Cal.Rptr.3d 42 (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 517 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Linda Jean TILLOTSON, Defendant and Appellant. No. G035041. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division Three. November 30, 2007. *46 Jean F. Matulis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Oakland, for De

61 Cal.Rptr.3d 731 (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 382 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Linda Jean TILLOTSON, Defendant and Appellant. No. G035041. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division Three. June 21, 2007. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing July 13, 2007. *735 Jean F. M

Bell, J. Every owner of land situate upon a stream has a right to the natural flow of the stream; a right to insist that the *95stream shall continue to run uti currare solebat; that it shall flow upon his land in its usual quantity, at its natural place, and at its usual height, and that it shall flow off his land upon the land of his neighbor below in its accustom

The plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for seduction; the defendant demurred to the complaint; the demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed. A summary of the material allegations of the complaint follows: The plaintiff is a married woman; her husband was Perry Hyatt; they were *Page 26 married 21 April, 1912; her husband, while working for the defendant suffered serious physical injury, and was afterwards unable to gai

Defendants appeal from a judgment for $3,750 for the detriment caused to the property of plaintiffs in a ferry franchise and equipment by the construction of a free bridge over the Sacramento River connecting a street in the city of Redding with a county road of the county *Page 477 of Shasta. As originally commenced the action was one by which the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the city from completing the bridge. At the time of the trial it was all constru

592 So.2d 927 (1991) McDONALD'S CORPORATION v. ROBINSON INDUSTRIES, INC. and Mississippi State Highway Commission. McDONALD'S CORPORATION and Robinson Industries, Inc. v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF MISSISSIPPI. Nos. 07-CA-59270, 07-CA-59419. Supreme Court of Mississippi. August 21, 1991. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing February 12, 1992.

OPINIÓN OF THE COURT AMBRO, Circuit Judge.- TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION............,.............:................../.......:. 420 II.BACKGROUND...............................................•........'..421 A Concussion Suits Are Brought Against the NFL.......................

OPINION W.C. DAVIS, Judge. Appeal is taken from a conviction for capital murder. V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2). After finding appellant guilty, the jury returned affirmative answers to the first two special issues under Art. 37.071(b), V.A.C.C.P. Punishment was assessed at death. Appellant raises seven points of error. We will affirm. In order to dispose of several of appellant’s point

SOBELOFF, Senior Circuit Judge: This appeal results from a proceeding initiated by the Internal Revenue Service to enforce an administrative summons issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602.1 This section authorizes IRS to summon anyone in possession of pertinent records to appear and produce them, for the purpose of either ascertaining the correctness of any return or determining the correct tax liabilit

479 F.2d 749 73-1 USTC P 9477 UNITED STATES of America and Tobe H. Todd, Jr., RevenueAgent, Internal Revenue Service, Appellee,v.Charles THEODORE, as Vice-President of Theodore AccountingService, P. A., and Theodore Accounting Service, aProfessional Association, Appellants. No. 72-2390. United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit.

RAWLINGS, Justice. Jury trial of three separate negligence actions in one count for damages resulting from multiple vehicle collision resulted in judgment on verdict for one plaintiff from which defendants appeal. Trial court subsequently held other two plaintiffs were entitled to judgment and from that holding defendants also attempt an appeal. We affirm in part, dismiss in part. April 15, 1969, at about

351 N.E.2d 48 (1976) William PIEL and Donald Piel, Appellants-Defendants, v. Nettie DEWITT et al., Appellees-Plaintiffs. No. 2-1274A303. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District. July 21, 1976. *50 Joe Heaton, Tipton, for appellants-defendants. Daniel J. Harrigan & Bayliff, Harrigan, Cord & Maugans, Kokomo, Wil

MILLER, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part): In so far as the majority recognizes that no “custom of the service” exists in the United States Air Force which criminalizes “fraternization” (social intercourse) between officers and enlisted personnel, I concur. See the evidence I presented for this position in United States v. Rodriguez, ACM 23545, 29 Octobe

The opinion o£ the court was delivered by Kaul, J.: This litigation stems from a requirement by the Director of Taxation that appellant, pursuant to provisions of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (K. S. A. and K. S. A. 1973 Supp. 79-3271, et seq.) employ the “separate accounting” method rather than allocating and apportioning its multistate net income under the so-called “three-factor”

274 F.2d 224 123 U.S.P.Q. 279 NATIONAL LATEX PRODUCTS COMPANY, Appellant,v.SUN RUBBER COMPANY, Appellee. AKRON PRESFORM MOLD COMPANY,Appellant, v. SUN RUBBER COMPANY, Appellee. Nos. 13568, 13569. United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. Oct. 28, 1959, Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1960, SecondPetition for Rehearing Denied March 1

349 F.Supp. 345 (1972) The GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. The FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant. The FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Plaintiff. v. The GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant. Civil Nos. 36799, C 67-206. United States District Court. N. D. Ohio, E. D. June 26, 1972. As Amended September 10, 19

250 S.W.2d 989 (1952) BASMAN v. FRANK et al. No. 42656. Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1. July 14, 1952. Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Denied September 8, 1952. *990 C. Arthur Anderson, St. Louis, John A. Eigel, St. Louis, Gragg & Aubuchon, St. Louis, O. P. Owen, St. Louis, for appellants.</

315 F.Supp. 68 (1970) GALLAND-HENNING MANUFACTURING COMPANY and Chattanooga Welding & Machine Company, Inc. v. DEMPSTER BROTHERS, INC. Civ. A. No. 5735. United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, N. D. January 22, 1970. *69 *70 Edward Taylor Newton, Newton, Hopkins, Jones & Ormsby,

I dissent more particularly to that portion of the majority opinion which holds that § 7316, Compiled Laws of 1913, (commonly known as Saving Clause) is applicable to the Referendum — § 7316 by its express terms only applies to laws passed by the Legislative Assembly and in no way refers to Initiated or Referendum matters, and as a matter of fact § 7316 was passed long prior to the passage of the Initiative or Referendum and therefore it could not have been contemplated t