Cases

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-17-00551-CV Nicholas Vincent Russo, Appellant v. Maria Camila Bernal, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. C-1-CV-17-001153, HONORABLE MIKE DENTON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 12, 2019 NO. 03-17-00551-CV Nicholas Vincent Russo, Appellant v. Maria Camila Bernal, Appellee APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND KELLY

ACCEPTED 03-17-00551-CV 21278577 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/13/2

*563Chapter 7 MEMORANDUM OPINION ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (Doc. Nos. 12, 14, 19) Caryl E. Delano, United States Bankruptcy Judge INTRODUCTION When a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge, he is discharged from

II. Deprivation of Adequate Medical Care Plaintiff's claim arises from defendants' alleged "deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs." Opp'n at 7. Such a claim is subject to a two-pronged analysis. First, an objective prong of the test requires that "the alleged deprivation of adequate medical care must be 'sufficiently serious.' " Salahuddin v. Goord ,

Opinion FLYNN, J. The plaintiff, Vincent Russo, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his application for a writ of mandamus against the defendants, the common council and the mayor of the city of Middletown, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly denied his request for relief because although his claim is con-cededly m

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), dated November 14, 2000, which directed him to pay the plaintiff wife various forms of pendente lite relief and awarded her a temporary order of protection. Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff a

483 F.Supp.2d 301 (2007) UNITED STATES of America v. James RUSSO, Rita Russo Elizabeth Russo, Rudolfo Russo, Thomas Russo. No. 05 CR 1326 SCR. United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 21, 2007. *302 *303 *304 *305<

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered October 8, 1999, which, to the extent appealable, denied third-party defendants’ motion and defendant’s cross-motion for renewal of plaintiff’s previously granted motion for partial summary judgment upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the motions for renewal, to deny plaintiffs motion for partial sum

The opinion of the court was delivered by REISNER, P.J.A.D. Defendants Conrad and Irene Russo appeal from a December 7, 2011 order denying their application to further restrain a sheriffs sale, and denying as untimely their motion to vacate a final judgment of foreclosure entered on March 17, 2009 in favor of plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. We affirm. I

Petition for certification denied.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cow-litz County, No. 87-1-00303-2, Alan R. Hallowell, J., entered October 8, 1987. Affirmed by unpublished opinion *1051per Schumacher, J. Pro Tem., concurred in by Alexander, C.J., and Baker, J. Pro Tem.

Denied.

840 A.2d 238 (2004) 178 N.J. 340 Joseph MACEDO, Rosemary Lesky, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Joseph DELLO RUSSO, M.D., Joseph Dello Russo, M.D., P.A. t/a New Jersey Eye Center, Medical Care, P.L.L.C. d/b/a Dello Russo Laser Vision, William T. Kellogg, M.D., Defendants-Appellants, and John Does 1-10 and ABC Corporations 1-10, Defendants. Supreme Court of New J

857 F.2d 1467 Wright (Pearl)v.Weinberger (Caspar), Russo (Vincent) NO. 87-1712 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. AUG 31, 1988 1 Appeal From: E.D.Pa. 2 AFFIRMED.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the *880 plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated May 3, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint, de

The opinion of the court was delivered by COLLESTER, J.A.D. Plaintiff Ana Madan-Russo appeals from that portion of an order of the Law Division on December 9, 2002, dismissing her complaint with prejudice based on the doctrine of forum nonconveniens. We reverse and remand for trial. Plaintiff, a resident of New Jersey, was the owner/operator of six McDonald’s restaurants in New Je

95 N.Y.2d 847 (2000) VINCENT J. RUSSO, Appellant, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Submitted May 15, 2000. Decided July 6, 2000. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution and that the "so

In a proceeding to determine the custody of the minor children of the parties, Vincent Russo, the father, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated March 16, 1977, which, after a hearing, inter alia, ordered that custody of the children remain with the petitioner mother pursuant to the judgment of divorce. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting from the third decretal paragraph thereof all language commencing with the

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr