Cases

90 P.3d 785 (2004) 208 Ariz. 48 The STATE of Arizona, Respondent, v. Clayton M. GUILLIAMS, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2002-0251-PR. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, Department B. May 28, 2004. *786 Robert Carter Olson, Pinal County Attorney, By Robert C. Brown, Florence, for Respondent. Micha

MAKAR, J. The issue in this case is whether an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) is statutorily authorized to modify an administrative order of child support retroactive to the date of service of the pleadings requesting modification. We hold that she is. I. The Department of Revenue initiated the underlying proceedings to establi

|,THIBODEAUX, Judge. This appeal concerns a suit by plaintiff-appellant, Shelly Guilliams, for damages arising out of Ms. Guilliams exit from a pick-up truck owned by Mr. Thomas H. Harrel III. Mr. Harrel brutally attacked Ms. Guilliams with a hammer at her home on the evening of January 31, 1998. Mr. Harrel, believing Ms. Guilliams to be dead, loaded her body into the back of his truck. Ms. Guilliams regained consciousness and

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) 2 CA-CR 2002-0251-PR Respon dent, ) DEPARTMENT B ) v. ) O P I N IO N

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 04-1113 ___________ Mark S. Guilliams, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the

McNULTY, Judge, (dissenting). I am not prepared to say that the conditions required by the will for the vesting of “title” to the grove in appellants were conditions precedent. A strong case can be made that they are conditions subsequent.1 But I don’t think it makes any difference in this case either way because in my view, the conditions were complied with. For this reason I am c

*801 COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Mark Guilliams applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied his application. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined that a

535 F.2d 1249 Guilliamsv.Mathews No. 75-1806 United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit 3/1/76 1 W.D.Va. AFFIRMED

299 N.W.2d 138 (1980) Lee GUILLIAMS, et al., Respondents, v. The COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, Relator. No. 50720. Supreme Court of Minnesota. October 24, 1980. *139 Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., and Paul R. Kempainen, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Revenue, St. Paul, for relator. Robert W. Johnson, St. Paul, for respondents.

ORDER MILLER, Judge. This case comes before the court after argument on cross-motions for summary judgment. The issues to be resolved are whether the Internal Revenue Code requires the inclusion of the following interests in the decedent’s gross estate: 1) the corpus of a trust held for the use and benefit of the decedent, 2) the date-of-death value of an annuity payable solely for the use and

BARKSDALE, District Judge. This action was instituted by the Administrator against the defendant, a dealer in used cars, at Roanoke, the complaint alleging that the defendant had violated the provisions of Maximum Price Regulation 540, promulgated by the Office of Price Administration, June 10, 1944, as amended, in several instances set out in the complaint, and praying for an injunction and damages as provided in U.S.C.A.Ti

636 F.Supp. 1419 (1986) Louis H. MANKO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 79-1011-CV-W-9. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, W.D. June 5, 1986. *1420 *1421 *1422 *1423 Charles M. Thomas, Je

McBRIDE, C. J. The case has two aspects, one being with reference to the navigability of the stream or lake in controversy, and the other as to the flowing-back of its waters to the injury of other properties along its banks. We have been somewhat hampered in our investigations by the indefiniteness of the questions and answers in matters such as boundaries, etc., involved, where precise answers were required. To illustrate the di

YETKA, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I believe that Minn.Stat. § 273.02, subd. 4 (1980) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the uniformity clause of Minn.Const. art. X, § 1. Accordingly, notwithstanding the majority’s well-founded concern over encroaching upon the authority of the legislatu

236 F.Supp. 189 (1964) George Clement KOPA, Deceased, by Mary W. Vasconcelles, Temporary Administratrix, and Mary N. Kopa, Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civ. No. 2161. United States District Court D. Hawaii. November 4, 1964. *190 Hughes, Alexander & Smart, by John F. Alexander, Honolulu, Hawaii, for

232 F.2d 596 109 U.S.P.Q. 124 Marie MAGEE and Donald F. Guilliams, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.The COCA-COLA COMPANY, Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Chicago,Inc. and Chicago Concessions, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 11420. United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit. April 5, 1956.Rehearing Denied May 16, 1956.

*709SULLIVAN, J.,* Concurring and Dissenting. While I am in general agreement with the majority opinion, I do not endorse its rationale in all respects. Basically, I agree with the majority’s conclusions that the first, fifth and sixth counts of plaintiffs’ second a

STEAKLEY, Justice (dissenting). Whether or not we agree in principle, the Federal Court of Appeals, while retaining jurisdiction “for the purpose of taking such further action as may be required,” is standing by in a diversity case, in which no federal question is to be decided and no fact question is to be resolved, while the parties obtain an adjudication under our declaratory judgment procedure of a questio

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA E.H., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE DAN SLAYTON, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCONINO, Respondent Judge, LILLIAN HESTER; JASON CONLEE; LENDA HESTER, Real Parties in Interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD T. STRAND, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Aaron Vantuyl seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) denying his applications for Social Security Disability benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income benefits (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. (Ac