Cases

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.

347 B.R. 679 (2006) In re Larry TEVIS and Nancy Tevis, Debtors. Larry Tevis, Nancy Tevis, Appellants, v. Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP, Appellee. BAP No. EC-05-1131, Bankruptcy No. 04-26357-B-13J. United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted on March 24, 2006. Filed — June 29, 2006. A

DECISION AND ORDER CHARLES A. ANDERSON, Bankruptcy Judge. This matter is before the Court for disposition of the plaintiff’s complaint filed December 15, 1980. On February 4, 1981, the Court held a pretrial conference at which counsel for the above defendants failed to attend; consequently, the Court entered the proposed Pretrial Order offered by the plaintiff. This matter was tried on February 26, 1981.

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

MEMORANDUM ** The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status. A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The distr

MEMORANDUM ** The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status. A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The distr

MEMORANDUM** Tevis R. Ignacio appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm. Ignacio’s complaint asserted claims relating to his family court proceedings in Santa Clara Superior C

79 N.J. 422 (1979) 400 A.2d 1189 JANINA TEVIS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL TEVIS, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued November 13, 1978. Decided April 5, 1979. *424 Mr. Ira D. Dorian argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Ma

Pashman, J., dissenting. The majority today rules that a woman who was severely beaten by her former husband will not be compensated for the injuries which she suffered. In its view, her claim for relief was filed six weeks later than a literal reading of N. J. S. A. 2AAA-2 would allow. In so holding, the majority both ignores the purposes underlying personal injury statutes of limitations and departs from this Court’s h

TROTT, Circuit Judge: Pro se appellant, Tevis R. Ignacio, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging that all the judges from the Ninth Circuit, other federal and state judges, public officials, and certain private individuals, conspired to dismiss Ignacio’s previous lawsuits. We affirm the district court and hold, under the “rule of necessity,” that we are not disqualified from deciding Ignacio’s app

AMENDED OPINION BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Defendants-Appellants Woody and Kathy Medlock (the Medlocks) appeal their jury convictions for aggravated identity theft, health-care fraud, and related crimes. 1 The Medlocks, who are married, owned and operated Murfreesboro Ambulance Service (MAS), a non-eme

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 15a0090p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION TERRY L. MYERS, CHIEF U. S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE In this adversary proceeding, the Court must determine if a chapter 7 debtor is entitled to a discharge of his debts. In litigating this issue, the parties addressed events, disputes and litigation spanning two decades and three bankruptcies. In June 2013, the United States Trustee (“UST”) filed a complaint objecting to th

233 U.S. 273 (1914) TEVIS v. RYAN. No. 189. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 23, 26, 1914. Decided April 6, 1914. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. *279 Mr. Edward H. Thomas, with whom Mr. Aldis B. Browne, Mr. Alexander Britton, Mr. Evans Browne, Mr. Ben Goodrich

OPINION AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. Plaintiff, Gonzales-McCaulley Investment Group, Inc. (“GMIG”), filed a complaint in this Court on May 9, 2011, alleging that it had entered into a contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), which HHS breached by rescinding the contract without explanation. On July 8, 2011, Defendant moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary j

By the Court, Rhodes, C. J.: The respondent, Kerr, settled on the land in controversy in 1854, with the intention of preempting it, and has ever since lived upon and improved it. In 1856 he filed his declaratory statement, but that was of -no avail to him, as the township in which the land is situated was then unsurveyed. The township was afterward surveyed, and the township plat was filed in the Land Office at Sacramento, on

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. This case arises out of the United States’ claim under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 that Floyd Johnson was a responsible person who willfully failed to pay over payroll taxes and is therefore liable for “a penalty equal to the total amount of [the tax not paid over]” — the Internal Revenue Service’s (the “IRS”) so-called “100-Percent Penalty.” 26 U.S.C. § 6672(a). M

839 F.Supp. 1484 (1993) Edward J. FINLEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, v. Floyd JOHNSON, Counterclaim Defendant. Civ. A. No. 91-1361-MLB. United States District Court, D. Kansas. December 15, 1993. *1485 Craig W. West, Foulston & Siefkin, Wichita, KS, for plaintiff. Carolyn D. Jones, Marti

82 F.2d 940 (1936) HULTMAN v. TEVIS.[*] In re TEVIS' ESTATE. No. 7929. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 26, 1936. John L. McNab, S. C. Wright, John T. Boynton, and Chas. C. Boynton, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Robert R. Moody, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Garret W. McEnerney, of San Francisco, Cal.,

97 F.3d 316 35 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1420, Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,120In re James Delbert McCONVILLE, Debtor.Tevis T. THOMPSON, Jr., Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.David MARGEN; Lawton Associates, Defendants-Appellants. No. 95-15122. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 9, 1996.Decided May 21, 1996.