Cases

636 F.2d 312 U. S.v.Scannell 79-5370 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit 1/19/81 1 N.D.Ala. AFFIRMED

ORDER SETTING PRIORITY OF LIENS DANIEL P. COLLINS, Bankruptcy Judge. The parties present an issue of first impression, namely, which has priority in Arizona: a restitution lien or a purchase money deed of trust? The Court concludes that a purchase money deed of trust against real property has priority over an earlier recorded restitution lien. I. Facts The essential

*325Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge. This case comes before us for the second time. Its first visitation was in Nasuti v. Scannell, 792 F.2d 264 (1st Cir.1986) (“Na-suti I”). The present time around, the basic issues remain much the same--the re-viewability and correctness of the district court’s order remanding back to the state court plaintiff Nasuti’s claim f

60 B.R. 562 (1986) In the Matter of Stephen James SCANNELL and Lauri Marie Scannell, Debtors. Elizabeth A. Scannell HOWE, Plaintiff, v. Stephen James SCANNELL, Defendant. Adv. No. 85-0076-7. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin. April 22, 1986. Timothy J. Peyton, Kepler Law Offices, Madison, Wis., for plaintiff. William T. Read, Madison, Wis., f

453 B.R. 36 (2011) In re Gerard D. SCANNELL, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 11-10797-JMD. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire. July 27, 2011. *37 Edmond J. Ford, Esq., Ford & Weaver, P.A., Portsmouth, NH, for Debtor. Charles R. Powell III, Esq., Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., Manchester, NH, for Paul Scannell. <

Appellate Case: 25-3123 Document: 60 Date Filed: 08/06/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 6, 2026 Christopher M.

Duffly, J. A judge of the Superior Court allowed the defendants’ motion to dismiss Peter Scannell’s claim for a judgment declaring that he is entitled to be paid a bounty under the Massachusetts False Claims Act (MFCA), G. L. c. 12, §§ 5A-50, inserted by St. 2000, c. 159, § 18, because of his role in uncovering fraudulent practices by Putnam Investments, Inc. (Putnam). We agree with the motion judge’s reasoning, set forth in a th

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

968 F.Supp. 1059 (1997) Phyllis L. SCANNELL, Plaintiff, v. BEL AIR POLICE DEPARTMENT, Town of Bel Air, William N. McFaul, Leo F. Matrangola, John W. Harkins, Norman E. Ross and Wallace A. Harward, Defendants. Civil No. AMD 96-1632. United States District Court, D. Maryland. June 16, 1997. *1060 *1061

Cutter, J. This is an appeal by Ed. Ferreirinha & Irmao, Lda. (EFI), from a Superior Court order which denied EPFs motion to vacate a default and judgment allegedly “entered as a result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” Subsequent proceedings took place in the manner hereinafter described. We direct that the judgment be vacated. The action was commenced by Scannell on February 5, 1979, to rec

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-2428 IRMA HERRERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northe

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-2428 IRMA HERRERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northe

DECISION AND ORDER ON BANKRUPTCY APPEAL D. Brock Hornby, United States District Judge In 2014, the Maine Law Court ruled that a party seeking to foreclose a residential mortgage lacks standing when it holds the mortgage solely by virtue of an assignment from Mortgage Electronic Registry Systems (MERS). Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, ¶¶ 10-17, 96 A.3d 700. A foreclosing party has to have “two

SELYA, Circuit Judge. This appeal raises two distinct but loosely connected issues. The first involves the question of whether the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS) is a state agency, not a “person,” and therefore exempt from suit by private parties under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, and its Massachusetts counterpart, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No. 39) AND PLAINTIFF-RELATOR’S CROSS-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (Docket No. 47) HILLMAN, District Judge. Background Plaintiff-Relator Michael Willette (‘Wil-lette”) has filed a qui tarn lawsuit against the University of Massach

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Cristobal Vargas of attempting to possess, with an intent to distribute, more than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Vargas claimed that he was just buying a truck when he appeared in the parking lot of a local pharmacy with a shoe box stuffed with $45,000 in cash. He claimed that was the reason for his

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Chief Judge. The question before us is whether this court is empowered to review a district court’s order remanding part of a case that had been removed from a state court pursuant to the Federal Drivers Act. We conclude that, under the present circumstances, we are not so empowered. Accordingly, we dismiss the appe

Swanson, J. John Scannell and 16 other Seattle city *176employees in intermittent positions sued the City for back vacation pay. The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and denied the employees' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the City's liability to intermittent employees for back vacation pay. The employees appealed. Finding th

401 Mass. 155 (1987) 514 N.E.2d 1325 JOHN D. SCANNELL & another[1] vs. ED. FERREIRINHA & IRMAO, LDA. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth. September 9, 1987. November 16, 1987. Present: HENNESSEY, C.J., WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS, & LYNCH, JJ. *156 Michael P. Duff