Cases

80 Wis.2d 435 (1977) 259 N.W.2d 114 SUSSMANN, d/b/a Wilhelm Sussmann & Company, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GLEISNER, Defendant-Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff: DEL MONTE CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. No. 75-446. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Submitted on briefs September 6, 1977. Decided November 1, 1977.

Graham, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise imported in this case was 45 bales of crude sponges, the bales or coverings consisting of burlap tied with rope, as shown by the report of the assistant appraiser. After importation, *62the assistant appraiser reported the goods as not legally marked and' the collector gave the f

78 U.S. 259 (1870) 11 Wall. 259 McVEIGH v. UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *261 Messrs. B.R. Curtis, Brent, Wattles, Moore, Hughes, Denver, and Peck, appeared for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Curtis argued the case orally, the other counsel filing briefs. Mr. Akerman, Attorney-General, Mr. Bristow, So

Order Denying Motion To Dismiss' As Moot And, On the ¡Court’s Own Motion, Ordering Filing op Amended Complaint In Light Op Recent Legislation YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On June 3, 2015, Defendants Loretta Lynch, et al,, (“the Government”) filed a “Notice Regarding Enactment of USA FREEDOM Act of 2015.” (Dkt. No. 67.) On June 9, -2015, Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”

Order Denying Government’s Motion For Summary Judgment Without Prejudice; Granting Twitter’s Motion For Order Directing Defendants To Expedite Security Clearance Re: Dkt. Nos. 124, 145 Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge Defendants Jefferson B. Sessions, III,1 the United States Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Radcliff, J. This was an' insurance on the freight of the Astrea, from New York to Corunna, in Spain, The policy was subscribed by the defendants on the 19 th November, 1798, in consequence of a written representation from the plaintiff, stating the ship, freight and cargo to be his property. The plaintiff was originally a subject of the United Netherlands and continued so until the 3d January, 1793, when he wa

Kozak v Kushner Vil. 329 E. 9th St. LLC (2024 NY Slip Op 05891) Kozak v Kushner Vil. 329 E. 9th St. LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 05891 Decided on November 26, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE THREE NATIONAL SECURITY No. 18-56669 LETTERS, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02269- MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney BAS-MDD General, Petitioner-Appellee, OPINION v. UNDER SEAL, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal from th

USCA11 Case: 22-13410 Document: 251-1 Date Filed: 11/26/2025 Page: 1 of 36 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-13410 ____________________ DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff-Appe

h CARAWAY, J. • This court granted a supervisory writ to review the ruling revoking defendant’s probation to address issues regarding the admissibility of certain hearsay evidence and sufficiency of the evidence to revoke probation. Although we find that two of the conditions of probation were shown to have been violated, the court erred in finding that a third, and more serious, violation was proven by the hearsay evidence

891 So.2d 109 (2005) STATE of Louisiana, Respondent, v. Larry Britton MICHAEL, Applicant. No. 39,439-KA. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. January 7, 2005. *110 Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC by Bobby L. Culpepper, Jonesboro, for Applicant. Robert W. Levy, District Attorney, Stephen K. Hearn, Jr., Laurie Whitten

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERKINS COIE LLP, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-716 (BAH) v. Judge Beryl A. Howell U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION

480 So.2d 495 (1985) STATE of Louisiana v. Bobbie L. DAVIS. No. 85-KA-442. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit. December 16, 1985. *496 John M. Mamoulides, Dist. Atty., Dorothy A. Pendergast, Elizabeth M. Gaudin, Asst. Dist. Attys., Research and Appeals, Gretna, for plaintiff-appellee. Martha E. Sassone, Staff Appe

5 Kan. App. 2d 201 (1980) 614 P.2d 1007 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. THOMAS CARTER, Appellant. Nos. 51,153, 51,154 Court of Appeals of Kansas. Opinion filed July 18, 1980. Alan D. Herman, of Jochems, Sargent & Blaes, of Wichita, for the appellant. Beverly Dempsey, assistant district attorney, Robert T. Stephan,

125 Wis.2d 405 (1985) 373 N.W.2d 47 Russell J. BULGRIN and Susan M. Bulgrin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MADISON GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Defendants-Respondents, SARGENT & LUNDY, INC., Gibralter Casualty Co., Buffalo Forge Company, Utica Mutual Ins. Co., Fire Systems, Inc., Allegheny Ludlum Industries, Inc., Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., and Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, De

171 B.R. 641 (1994) In re Nye C. PELTON, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 92-31790-7. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin. August 16, 1994. *642 *643 Jerome M. Ott, Lawton & Cates, S.C., Madison, WI, for debtor. Marc R. Soderbloom, Quale, Hartmann, Bohl, Stevens & Reynolds, S.C., Barab

387 So.2d 75 (1980) STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of Troy Dexter WRIGHT (three cases). Nos. 11462-11464. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. July 30, 1980. Writ Granted in part and Denied in part September 19, 1980. *76 Steven Scheckman, New Orleans Legal Assistance Corp., New Orleans, for appellant. <

KAUFMAN, District Judge. This is a stockholders’ derivative action. Jurisdiction is based on diversity, plaintiff being a citizen of New York, National Air Lines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “National”), a Florida corporation, and Baker a citizen of Florida. National is a common carrier by air, engaged in interstate and foreign commerce. Its air line operates between Miami, Florida, and New York, New

Jacob Markowitz, J. This is a proceeding by the petitioning landlord brought pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (c) of section 2 of the Business Bent Law (L. 1945, ch. 314, as amd. by L. 1952, ch. 417, L. 1957, ch. 452). Subdivision (a) of section 2 of the statute defines “ Business Space ” in include “ on and after March first, nineteen hundred fifty-two, a building in which at least sixty per centum of the total rentabl

Per Curiam. Respondents, tenants in premises located on West 57th Street in this city, appeal from an order of Special and Trial Term which determined that 60% of the units in their building had been converted from residential to business space. Consequently it established rentals pursuant to section 2 of the Business Rent Law (L. 1945, ch. 314, § 2, as amd.). The primary question involved is whether