Cases

PER CURIAM: At Appellant’s first trial, a special court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of fraternization (one specification) and creating a hostile work environment (one specification), in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 892 (2006). The sentence, as adjudged by the court-m

PUBLISHED OPINION OF THE COURT MODZELEWSKI, Senior Judge: A general court-martial with enlisted representation convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of possessing 189 images and 27 videos of child pornography on his laptop computer, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934. The convening authority (CA) approved the adjudged sentence of t

PUBLISHED OPINION OF THE COURT BOOKER, Senior Judge: A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant, after mixed pleas, of burglary, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, fraternization, and indecent assault, respectively violations of Articles 129, 133, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 929, 933, and 934. The convening authority (CA) approved th

PER CURIAM: The present case involves a government appeal of an interlocutory ruling by the military judge abating the proceedings in the court-martial of Sergeant Caleb P. Hohman. See Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2006). The pending charges include violation of a lawful general order, dereliction of duty, and involunta

UNITED STATES, Appellee v. David J. PHILLIPS, Corporal U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant No. 11-0148 Crim. App. No. 200900568 United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Argued April 6, 2011 Decided June 28, 2011 STUCKY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in

UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Ivor G. LUKE, Hospital Corpsman Second Class U.S. Navy, Appellant No. 05-0157 Crim. App. No. NMCCA 200000481 United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Argued October 4, 2010 Decided January 25, 2011 ERDMANN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BA

22 F.Supp.2d 309 (1998) Gordon M. and Edith C. BROWNE v. UNITED STATES of America. No. Civ. 1:97CV349. United States District Court, D. Vermont. May 14, 1998. *310 James Torrisi, Derby Line, VT, J.E. McNeil, Jordan, McNeil & Ricks, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Carol L. Shea, Ass't U.S. Attorney, Burlington, VT,

OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge, This rails-to-trails class action is before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and plaintiffs’ Motion for Court Approval of Fees and Proposed Division of the Common Fund. Plaintiffs are more than 500 landowners who allege a tak

CCA 201000682. On consideration of the motion filed by LCDR Michael R. Torrisi to withdraw as appellate defense counsel, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent appellant and that the new attorney has assumed the representation of said appellant. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT EDWARD F. SHEA, Senior District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants Department of the Interior (“DOI”), Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”), Office of Natural Resources Revenue

CCA 201000361. On consideration of the motions filed by Lieutenant Commander Michael R. Torrisi for leave to withdraw as appellate defense counsel in the above cases, it appears that the Judge Advocate General has assigned another counsel to represent the Appellants and that the new counsel have assumed representation of said Appellants. Accordingly, it is ordered that said motions are hereby granted.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WOLSKI, Judge. In this class action lawsuit brought on behalf of current and former employees of the Veterans Health Administration (“VHA”) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), the Court has before it two unopposed motions filed by the plaintiffs. First, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), the plaintiffs seek

OPINION AND ORDER GEORGE W. MILLER, Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Mot. for Final Approval”) (docket entry 132, Dec. 1, 2011). In this motion, the parties request that the Court approve the proposed settlement agreement between the United States and the class of plaintiffs in Sabo, et al. v. Unite

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS ACTION WILLIAMS, Judge. This Rails-to-Trails action comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to certify this matter as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Recognizing that the parties agree on all matters regarding class certification with the exception of the notice period, and the requi

Tauro, C.J. The petitioners appeal from a decree after rescript on a petition in equity brought in the Probate Court under the provisions of G. L. c. 215, § 6, as appearing in St. 1963, c. 820, § 1. The sole issue is whether the Probate Court erred in ordering the petitioners to pay the respondents’ counsel fees in addition to costs. If this petition had been brought in the Superior Court our law is w

Wilkins, C.J. United Tool and Industrial Supply Co., Inc. (United), and another Massachusetts corporation which owns all the United stock, R. P. S. Corporation (R. P. S.),1 on February 2, 1968, brought this petition in equity in the Probate Court, Essex County, to enjoin the respondents Anthony Torrisi, Peter Torrisi, and A. Line Tools, Inc. (A. Line), also a Massachusetts corporation, from en

OPINION HORN, Judge. This matter comes before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the Settlement Agreement between the United States and approximately 620 former junior officers who held reserve commissions in the United States Air Force. Within four days of the filing of this opinion, the parties shall file a joint status report informing the court of the exact number and names of those plai

356 Mass. 103 (1969) 248 N.E.2d 266 UNITED TOOL AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO., INC. & another vs. ANTHONY TORRISI & others. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex. May 6, 1969. June 2, 1969. Present: WILKINS, C.J., WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, SPIEGEL, & REARDON, JJ. Fredric S. O'Brien (Maurice Rappaport with him)

8 F.3d 1370 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,816, 27 Fed.R.Serv.3d 349 John V. TORRISI, Plaintiff-Appellee,andJames Lazar, Objector-Appellant,v.TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.(Two Cases)In re TUCSON ELECTRIC COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION. (Two Cases)John V. TORRISI, Plaintiff-Appellee,andPatricia Reilly, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY;

OPINION AND ORDER FUTEY, Judge. This case comes before the court for final approval of the Second Addendum to the Litigation Settlement Agreement between the representatives of the plaintiff class, Dauphin Island Property Owners Association, Inc. (“the Association”), and James W. Hartman, and defendant, the United States. The State of Alabama is not a named defendant in this litigation; however