Cases

515 F.Supp.2d 817 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. Paul M. NEUMANN, Defendant. No. 3:05CR777. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. October 4, 2007. *818 *819 Seth D. Uram, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Ohio, Toledo, OH, for Plaintiff.

701 F.2d 187 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1678 U. S.v.Neumann 82-1360 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Ninth Circuit 2/2/83 1 D.Nev. AFFIRMED

825 F.2d 414 U.S.v.Neumann (Laurence) NO. 86-1184 United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. JUL 30, 1987 1 Appeal From: D.Nev. 2 VACATED AND REMANDED.

718 F.2d 1103 U. S.v.Neumann 82-2896 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Seventh Circuit 8/17/83 1 N.D.Ill. AFFIRMED

582 F.2d 40 U. S.v.Neumann*** No. 78-5089 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 9/28/78 1 N.D.Tex. AFFIRMED

539 F.2d 713 U. S.v.Neumann No. 76-1027 United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit 6/22/76 1 W.D.Wis. AFFIRMED

750 F.2d 1422 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1207 UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of David G.NEWTON, doing business under the assumed name andstyle of David G. Newton Construction,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.NEUMANN CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL, LTD., doing business asNeumann Caribbean, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 83-1904. United States Court of Ap

WYZANSKI, Senior District Judge: This is an appeal by Neumann Caribbean International, Ltd. (Neumann) and Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) from a judgment of the District Court of the Northern District of California ordering Neumann and Safeco to submit to arbitration David G. Newton’s (Newton) claim against Neumann arising out of a contract between them, and further ordering a stay of all

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-2911 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Distr

WOLLMAN, Chief Judge. Randall Neumann entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession with the intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), reserving the right to appeal the district court’s2 denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of his vehicle. He now appeals, and we affirm. I. On January 1

374 B.R. 688 (2007) In re Cindy NEUMANN, a/k/a Cindy Whetstone, and John Neumann, Sr., Debtors. Minnesota Fair Plan, Plaintiff, v. Cindy Neumann, a/k/a Cindy Whetstone, and John Neumann, Sr., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 04-51118, Adversary No. 05-5005. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota. August 17, 2007. *689

414 B.R. 383 (2009) In re NEUMANN HOMES, INC., et al., Debtors. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Neumann Homes, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Kenneth P. Neumann and Jean L. Neumann, Defendants. No. 09 C 169. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. April 27, 2009. *385 Emily Newhouse Dillingham, Gr

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDER PER CURIAM: In a panel opinion dated July 21, 2000, Neumann v. West, 14 Vet.App. 12 (2000), the Court affirmed that part of the July 15,1998, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that denied the appellant’s claims to establish service connection for cubital tunnel syndrome, a skin disorder, and a perception or coor

MARK A. GOLDSMITH, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court after remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. This Court had earlier granted Steven Michael Neumann's petition under the Hague Convention for the return to Mexico of two of his three minor children, who had been wrongfully taken by his wife, Respondent Julie Ann Neumann.1 See Neumann

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ALE SI A, District Judge. Petitioner Lawrence Neumann, an Illinois state prisoner, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Neumann alleges that, during jury selection at his trial, the state prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. As such, Neumann contends that the state violated the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to a

MEMORANDUM OPINION MARILYN SHEA-STONUM, Bankruptcy Judge. This matter came before the Court on plaintiffs’ complaints to determine discharge-ability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a), and, in the case of Antonia Neumann, § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(5) and (a)(6) and to determine whether defendant-debtor converted certain property owned by plaintiff, Antonia Neumann. JURISDICTION