Cases

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA PUBLISHED Present: Judges Beales, Athey and Callins Argued at Arlington, Virginia ATLANTIC KOREAN AMERICAN PRESBYTERY OPINION BY v. Record No. 1930-23-4 JUDGE CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, JR.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. In 2005, several individual plaintiffs and organizations commenced a lawsuit against the County of Nassau, the Incorporated Village of Garden City (the “Village” or “Garden City”), and the Garden City Board of Trustees. Briefly, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants discriminatorily re-zoned two parcels of Nassau County-owned land that were locat

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER James 0. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Bench Trial on Plaintiffs’ First Through Fourth Claims for Relief, and Brief in Support, filed February 17, 2017 (Doc. 253)(“Motion for Bench Trial”). The Court held a hearing on April 26-27, 2017, The primary issues are whether: (i) the Plaintiffs’ breach-of-fiduciary-

By Judge Randy I. Bellows Of the several issues now before the Court, the sole issue that is ripe for decision, and the one that therefore shall be decided today, is whether the powers and the authorities of Va. Code § 57-9(A) (hereinafter “§ 57-9(A)”) may be invoked in the instant litigation. That matter requires the resolution of four questions: First, what are the definitions of “ch

PER CURIAM: On September 10,1982, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia determined that appellee John Hayes was not in civil contempt for his failure to comply with a previous court order commanding production of certain documents requested by the Internal Revenue Service.1 The court’s ruling accepted Hayes’ assertion that he was unable to comply with the order becau

ACCEPTED 01-15-00556-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/21/2015 10:14:05 PM CHRIST

ACCEPTED 14-15-00882-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/28/2015 8:14:08 PM CHRISTOPHER

ACCEPTED 01-14-00870-cv FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/8/2015 12:33:22 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

ACCEPTED 01-15-00571-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/24/2015 9:45:33 PM CHRIST

ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/23/2

WISDOM, Circuit Judge: Once again the Court is called upon to review school desegregation plans to determine whether the plans meet constitutional standards. The distinctive feature of these cases, consolidated on appeal, is that they also require us to reexamine school desgregation standards in the light of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Guidelines of the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Educat

372 F.2d 836 UNITED STATES of America and Linda Stout, by her father andnext friend, Blevin Stout, Appellants,v.JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellees.UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF FAIRFIELD et al., Appellees.UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF BESSEMER et al., Appellees.UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,

11th July, 1859. Cadwalader, J. Ludlow & Co., of Philadelphia, gave to S. Beebee Ludlow, of San Francisco, a letter of credit, authorizing him to draw upon them to an unlimited amount. He drew from time to time, under this authority, selling his drafts upon them at San Francisco, and investing the proceeds in bullion, and in bills of *7other drawers in Ca

PER CURIAM. Motion for leave to go to Court of Appeals granted, and the following questions of law certified to the Court of Appeals as questions of law which ought to he reviewed by said court-: (1) Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant Charles B. Alexander? (2) Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant Henry M. Ale

Benson, J. delivered the opinion of the court. There may he a judgment, for the insufficiency of the declaration or plea, as the case may be, against the party, though there may be a verdict for him. If the party for whom a verdict is found, will not move for judgment, the other party may pray for judgment against himself; but the entry on the record will still be as if the judgment had been on the prayer of the party for whom