Cases

PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Gregory D. Guth brought a qui tarn action against Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCol-lister for alleged fraudulent billing practices arising from Roedel Parsons’s representation of Louisiana State University in an expropriation proceeding against Guth. On appeal, Guth challenges the district court’s judgment dismissing the action

ORDER Randall Lynn McCollister appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence. This *975case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). McCollister pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) STATE V. MCCOLLISTER NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, V.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 1880 SUPERFINE LANE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, C.A. No. N13J-04476 CEB Vv. KENNETH MCCOLLISTER, i ae ae ae ae a a a Defendant. Submitted: November 18, 2019 Decided: January 6, 2020 On Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Commissioner ’s Order and Confirmation of the Sheriff's Sale. GRANTED. ORDER The Court is asked to review a ruling by a Superior Court Commissioner setting aside a sheriff's sale. After de novo review, the Co

671 F.Supp.2d 884 (2009) Danny WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Lister McCOLLISTER, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. L-08-131. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Laredo Division. September 22, 2009. *885 Dana Theresa Williams, The Williams Law Firm PC, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff. Patricia O'Connell Alvarez, The Alvarez L

MEMORANDUM OPINION CHARLES R. SIMPSON III, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendant, the United States of America, to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). (DN 23). Plaintiffs1 filed a response to the motion (DN 28), to which the United States replied (DN 29). For the reasons set forth her

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: By appeals or, in the alternative, petitions for a writ of mandamus, various *910 “News Media”, 1 challenge measures used by the court to protect juror anonymity in a much-publicized criminal trial. Those meas

113 F.Supp.2d 689 (2000) Craig E. LESHNER, Plaintiff, v. McCOLLISTER'S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC.; McCollister's Moving & Storage, Inc.; John Does 1-10, fictitious persons or corporations, jointly, severally, and alternatively, Defendants. No. CIV. A. 00-3342 (JEI). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. September 13, 2000. Alan H. Schorr & Associate

190 F.Supp.2d 91 (2001) GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. McCOLLISTER'S MOVING & STORAGE, INC., Defendant. No. 99-11469-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. September 11, 2001. Robert W. Harrington, Law Office of Robert W. Harrington, Boston, MA, Rachel H. Prindle, Law Offices of Robert W. Harrington, Boston, MA, for Great Northern I

The motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

TUTTLE, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the conviction of the appellants under an indictment charging them along with several other defendants, who have not appealed, with conspiracy to violate the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States by accepting wagers and conducting a lottery for profit without paying the occupational t

OPINION AND ORDER ON THE REPRESENTATION OF THE STATE CHARLES SCHWARTZ, Jr., District Judge. This case is before the Court on the motion of the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana to Designate Counsel for the State and Withdraw Designation of Additional Counsel [Record Document No. (R.Doc.) 517A]. Civil Action No. 90-4109 is also before the Court on the motion of the Attorney General to remand to st

ORDER & REASONS CHARLES SCHWARTZ, Jr., District Judge. Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Order of September 21, 1990 [R.Doc. No. 541], the parties have submitted in writing any objections to the proposed remedial order attached as Exhibit A of that Order (the “Proposed New Plan”).1 The Court rules as follows. The following parties have responded to the Order: the Un

Abatement Order filed September 12, 2013. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-13-00775-CV ____________ DAVID ESTRIDGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF HIS MINOR SON, CADEN ESTRIDGE, Appellant v. BRUCE MCCOLLISTER, TRI-CITY SWEEPING, INC., AND HIGHWAY

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Vigil’s Objections to the Presentence Report & Sentencing Memorandum, filed March 16, 2012 (Doc. 122) (“Objections”). The Court held a sentencing hearing on April 26, 2013. The primary issue is whether the Court should sustain Defendant Gloria Vigil’s objection to the United State

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge: Defendant-appellant James Harvey “Jim” Brown (Brown), a prominent Louisiana political figure, is currently under indictment in the Middle District of Louisiana on various charges relating to the brokering of an alleged “sham” settlement of a threatened lawsuit by the State of Louisiana against the president of a failed automobile insurance company. The di

518 F.3d 369 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Ann TATUM, Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-5733. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: February 8, 2008. Decided and Filed: March 5, 2008. *370 ARGUED: M. Dianne Smothers, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Memphis, Tennes

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0102p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellee, - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

501 F.3d 655 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mitchell V. KAMINSKI (05-3823); Marilyn A. Coleman (05-3826); and Ovimmune, Inc. (05-4509), Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 05-3823, 05-3826, 05-4509. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: July 27, 2007. Decided and Filed: August 31, 2007.