Cases

882 F.Supp. 1520 (1995) Darnell WILLIAMS v. Edward SWEENEY. Civ. A. No. 94-CV-2916. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. April 17, 1995. *1521 Darnell Williams, L.C.P. No. 18535, Allentown, PA, pro se. Ronald E. Corkery, Asst. County Solicitor, County of Lehigh, Dept. of Law, Allentown, PA, for defendant. <

WILLIAMS, J.: Mark M. Sweeney (Husband) appeals the family court’s final divorce decree, arguing the court erred in (1) awarding alimony to Irene M. Sweeney (Wife), (2) apportioning nonmar-ital property, (3) miscalculating the amount of rental proceeds he deposited in the parties’ joint account during the pendency of litigation, (4) holding him in contempt, and (5) awarding Wife attorney’s fees. Wife cross-appeals, asserting t

06/10/2024 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 13, 2024 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EMILY ASHTON WILLIAMS AND JOEL SCOTT SWEENEY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2018-D-2540 Jennifer Smith, Judge

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2019 *340judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

STAHL, Circuit Judge. Defendant Neil Sweeney ("Sweeney") was convicted of distribution and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. On appeal, Sweeney raises the following arguments: (1) the district court erred in admitting evidence that was collected based on an overly broad and stale search warrant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; (2) the distri

304 F.Supp.2d 868 (2004) John Henry SWEENEY; Rickey Lewis; Earnest Lewis; Phillip Owens; George A. Harris; Roosevelt Lewis; and John Gaines Plaintiffs v. The SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY; CNA Holdings, Inc., F/K/A Devoe & Raynolds Paints; Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc., F/K/A Glidden Paints; Benjamin Moore & Company; PPG Industries, Inc., D/B/A and Successor in Interest to Pittsburgh Paints; Seabrook Paint Company of Mississippi; Mobile

EDWARD J. DAVILA, United States District Judge Presently before the Court is a Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss filed by Defendant Tractor Supply Company ("TSC"). Plaintiff Debra Sweeney filed a class action complaint against TSC, her former employer, in Santa Clara Superior Court, and TSC subsequently removed the litigation to federal court. Sweeney seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals harmed by

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Defendant Eugene Sweeney used a gun to rob a Milwaukee tavern where he had worked before. He was convicted of armed robbery under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced as an armed career offender under 18 U.S.C.

963 A.2d 711 (2009) 112 Conn.App. 534 Ronald CLUKEY v. William J. SWEENEY et al. No. 29221. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued October 29, 2008. Decided February 10, 2009. *713 William F. Gallagher, with whom, on the brief, was Hugh D. Hughes, for the appellants (named defendant et al.

PHILLIPS, District Judge. Plaintiffs are 13 retired union plumbers who were members of the former Iowa Local 212. Plaintiffs receive retirement benefits from the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund (“PPNPF”). Defendants are the PPNPF, the PPNPF’s Board of Trustees, and the Board’s Administrator (collectively, “Defendants”). In 2009, Defendants re

10/11/2019 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 30, 2019 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TEROS ANDERSON SWEENEY, ALIAS Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 105506 Steven Wayne Sword, Judge ___________________________________

McKAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Colorado Judicial Department (“CJD”) appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) reversing the bankruptcy court for the District of Colorado and concluding that restitution ordered pursuant to juvenile delinquency proceedings is dischargea-ble under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(3). CJD argues that an adjudication of guilt res

474 F.Supp.2d 1333 (2007) Benjamin T. CATHEY, Plaintiff, v. William T. SWEENEY, as Administrator for the Board of Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Defendants. No. CIVA CV205-202. United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division. January 29, 2007.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LISA M. SWEENEY, individually § and as Co-Trustee of the Josephine S. § No. 276, 2024 Sweeney Living Trust, § § Court Below: Court of Chancery Petitioner/Counterclaim § of the State of Delaware Respondent Below, § Appellant, § C.A. No. 2022-0021

869 A.2d 137 (2005) 2005 VT 11 STATE of Vermont v. Cathy Ann SWEENEY. No. 03-425. Supreme Court of Vermont. January 21, 2005. *138 William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and John R. Treadwell and David E. Tartter, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Matthew Valerio, Defen

292 F.Supp.2d 700 (2003) Richard A. GERBER and Charles Shumanis, Plaintiffs, v. Edward SWEENEY, et al., Defendants. Nos. CIV.A. 02-241, CIV.A. 02-1645. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. November 13, 2003. *701 *702 David R. Moffitt, Lynanne B. Wescott, Matthew M. Haar, Saul Ewin

ROWE, J., concurring. I concur in the majority opinion, but write to explain that even if preserved, the trial court’s order would be affirmable on the merits. Ms. Sweeney’s insurance policy set forth the insured’s obligations under the policy when there is a claim for loss, specifically providing that, “In case of loss [the insured] must ... submit to examinations under oath.... ” Cou

71 P.3d 168 (2003) 188 Or. App. 255 STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Jason Maurice SWEENEY, Appellant. 010342410, A115028. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted March 31, 2003. Decided June 12, 2003. *169 Rebecca Duncan, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Wit

MEMORANDUM ** We do not reach Tatarian’s argument that res judicata does not preclude successive facial challenges to different provisions of a single ordinance, because his first suit by its terms challenged the entire ordinance. His complaint alleged that “Ordinance No. 18.89[sic], enacted by the City of Anaheim on October 5, 1993, and/or the specific provisions outlined hereinabove are invalid

Opinion LAVERY, C. J. The plaintiff, Katherine McManus, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Joseph H. Sweeney. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that the defendant was absolutely privileged to publish defamatory statements contained in a letter he wrote to Hugh Barber, an assistant attorney general for the state