Cases

533 F.Supp.2d 345 (2008) HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., Plaintiff, v. Leonard SCHNEIDER, Leslie Schneider, Scott Schneider, and Susan Schneider, Defendants. Leonard Schneider, Leslie Schneider, Scott Schneider, and Susan Schneider, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. RBC Capital Markets Corporation f/k/a RBC Dominion Securities Corporation, Third-Party Defendant and Third-Party Counterclaimant. No. 02 Civ. 8098(PKL).<

617 P.2d 322 (1980) 48 Or.App. 631 Alice R. MEISLAHN, Appellant, v. Edwin W. DEMOREST, Respondent. No. A7711 16789; CA 14111. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Decided October 6, 1980. Argued and Submitted March 24, 1980. *323 John R. Bakkensen, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him

904 F.Supp. 595 (1995) U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., A Nevada Corporation, and U-Haul Co. of Michigan, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Ed KRESCH, Simon Kresch, Neu-Monics and Centre 40 Trucking, Jointly & Severally, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-74341. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. August 7, 1995.

OPINION SUSAN H. BLACK, District Judge. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the First Amendment. The complaint alleges subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346, and 2201. I. The Factual Background Plaintiff, John Wilkes, is an employee of the Jacksonville District of the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter “IRS”). I

336 So.2d 579 (1976) Ray G. BEHM and Frances K. Behm, Petitioners, v. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. No. 45431. Supreme Court of Florida. July 8, 1976. Rehearing Denied September 21, 1976. *580 James J. Richardson, of Henderson, Richardson, Henry, Buchanan,

FRANKLIN E. KENNAMER, District Judge. The United States of America, on behalf of numerous Osage Indians, has instituted six different suits, wherein the Government seeks to recover for said Indians taxes paid on real estate in Osage County, Oklahoma, for the year 1936. There are two hundred twenty nine causes of action involved in the six suits, and the total sum sought to be recovered is twenty eight thousand one hundred fo

BAKER, District Judge. After making the foregoing statement, the opinion of the court was delivered by It is claimed that if the bill tiled on March 14, 1882, was tiled in time to obviate the bar of the statute of limitations, the present bill is not barred, nor is the appellant open to the charge of laches in sleeping on his rights. Appellant’s counsel cite and rely on section 25 of the statute of limitations