Cases

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. When a prisoner filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after exhausting those remedies, the district court held t

OPINION OF THE COURT Rivera, J. William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers and Auctioneers, Inc. (Jenack) appeals from an order of the Appellate Division granting defendant Albert Rabizadeh (Rabizadeh) summary judgment, and dismissing the complaint in its entirety. We reverse because the Appellate Division erred in concluding that Jenack failed to comply with the statutory requirement of a writing in support of its

OPINION PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Kevin A. Cahill, has appealed from the entry of judgment in favor of the defendants, William M. Gagnon, alias (Gagnon or defendant), and the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) in this personal injury action. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on March 6, 2002, pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised

Graffeo, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with Point I of the majority’s opinion. But I believe the jury’s determination of James Cahill’s guilt of murder in the first degree, based on two statutory aggravating factors—felony murder (see Penal Law § 125.27 [1] [a] [vii]) and witness elimination (see Penal Law

HUGHES, J., would deny.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 990 CA 16-00252 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. WILLIAM J. KUHN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WILLIAM GIOVANNIELLO AND LORRAINE GIOVANNIELLO, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. PULOS AND ROSELL, LLP, HORNELL (WILLIAM W. PULOS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN TROP, ROCHESTE

People v Cahill (2022 NY Slip Op 06824) People v Cahill 2022 NY Slip Op 06824 Decided on November 30, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

20 F.Supp.2d 141 (1998) Robert S. CAHILL, Frank M. Barbuto, Sr. and William J. Baldwin, Partners, d/b/a CBC Painting, Plaintiffs, v. TIG PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Isabel CAHILL, Mary Alice Barbuto, Douglas E. Caffrey and Carol Caffrey, Third-Party Defendants. Civil Action No. 96-40147-NMG. United States District Court, D. Massachuse

99 F.Supp.2d 464 (2000) Vincent CAHILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK, Defendant. No. CIV. A. 97-4359. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. May 23, 2000. *465 *466 *467 *468

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1013 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1014 OPINION I. INTRODUCTION This is an appeal from a judgment of the San Francisco Superior Cou

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge HAMILTON wrote the opinion, in which Judge MURNAGHAN and Senior Judge MICHAEL joined. OPINION HAMILTON, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, we decide three issues of first impression in our circuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. The first issue is whether ERIS

Berg v Cahill (2023 NY Slip Op 00645) Berg v Cahill 2023 NY Slip Op 00645 Decided on February 8, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Judgment rendered August 27, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 56,423-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** MARINA HOMEOWNERS Plaintif

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appellant Bonide Products, Inc. (“Bonide”) appeals from the August 23, 1999 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. (District Judge), granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denying Bonide’s cross-motions for summary judgment and to amend its complaint, and declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Bonide’s remaini

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING The Respondent's motion for rehearing is overruled. Our opinion of July 3, 1990, however, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in its place. This adverse possession case presents the issue of whether the adverse possession claimant, Respondent Marjorie Cahill, has proven each element of adverse possession as a matter of law. We hold that she has not. For reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the court of appea

47 F.Supp.2d 87 (1999) Robert S. CAHILL, Frank M. Barbuto, Sr. and William J. Baldwin, Partners, d/b/a CBC Painting, Plaintiffs, v. TIG PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim/ Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Isabel Cahill, Mary Alice Barbuto, Douglas E. Caffrey and Carol Caffrey, Third-Party Defendants. No. Civ.A 96-40147 NMG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

646 F.3d 138 (2011) WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY, d/b/a The Graham Company v. Thomas P. HAUGHEY; USI MidAtlantic, Inc., Appellants. No. 10-2762. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued March 22, 2011. Filed: May 16, 2011. *140 Aleksander J. Goranin, David J. Wolfsohn (Argued), Woodcock Washburn, Henry

794 F.Supp.2d 566 (2011) WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY d/b/a the Graham Company v. Thomas P. HAUGHEY, et al. Civil Action No. 05-612. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. June 30, 2011. *567 David J. Wolfsohn, Aleksander J. Goranin, Chad E. Ziegler, Woodcock Washburn LLP, Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., Ballard Spahr LLP, Shawn

IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED Nina Cahill and Kenneth S. Davis, Aug 28 2024, 9:10 am Appellants-Plaintiffs CLERK Indiana Supreme Court

JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE MCGRAW dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Grievance rulings involve a combination of both deferential and plenary review. Since a reviewing court is obligated to give deference to factual findings rendered by an administrative law judge, a circuit court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the hearing examiner with regard to factual d