Huffington V. Tc Group, Llc, 637 F. 3d 18

Procedural History: The North Carolina district court granted Dagenhart injunction, however the U.S. appealed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari. (The Oyez Project)

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned, Elise Smith, Esquire, did prepare Defendants, Lewis E. Olson and Albert Dobiash's Interrogatories to answer.

Finally, Sucklal argues that she was denied an adequate opportunity to be heard with respect to the motions hearings on September 26, 2013, and September 5, 2014. At the outset we note that an appellant has a responsibility to cite us to “the facts material to a determination of the questions presented.” Md. Rule 8-504(a)(4). Indeed, “we cannot be expected to delve through the record to unearth factual support favorable to the appellant.” Rollins v. Capital Plaza Assoc., L.P., 181 Md. App. 188, 201 (2008). In her brief, Sucklal makes bald assertions that she was denied due process, but fails to articulate the specific circumstances that give rise to such claims. The deficiencies in the arguments notwithstanding, after a through review

Procedural History: Appellants filed suit in U.S. District Court which ruled that the Appellants Constitutional rights were violated. Officials from both Burlington and Essex County Appealed

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

In the case of Greene’s Jewelry located in Derry, New Hampshire. v. Jennifer Lawson (Known as The Defendant).

Procedural History: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted judgment in favor of defendants. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the respondents’ refusal to pay the

Facts of the Case- In March 2010, there came about multiple lawsuits that were merged into one case shortly after Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius). With the passing of this act it required U.S. citizen who did not already have health care through Medicaid, Medicare, corporate, or any government-sponsored source to get health care. Citizens who did not have any of the mentioned healthcare sources would be forced into buying into the federally funded healthcare. If they did not buy into the healthcare, there would be a strict penalty

At the time of the filing of his appeal, Mr. David R. Bullock had been charged and convicted of

This case was heard in the Franklin County Court of Appeals in Ohio and the Ohio Supreme

This case shows that Shaffer filed a shareholder’s derivative suit in Delaware state court against Heitner and 28 corporate officers for violating their duties while in Oregon resulting in corporate liability for lots of damages in an antitrust suit, plus a fine in criminal actions. In demand, he filed motion for possession of Delaware property of the defendants. Heither didn’t sign residency in Delaware and owned one share of Greyhound stock. Heither filed for motion legal possession of Greyhound’s stock owned by 21 of the corporate officers in order to keep quasi-in-rem jurisdiction. Delaware’s statute allowed assets in the state to be seized by the court to keep personal ownership. Shaffer challenged the court’s jurisdiction on obtaining

Whether the circuit court erred in denying Loftin’s motion for judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence. the evidence legally insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction?

This Court has emphasized, time after time, that dismissal “is rarely appropriate in a declaratory judgment action.” Popham v. State Farm, 333 Md. 136, 140 n. 2, 634 A.2d 28, 30 n. 2 (1993), quoting Broadwater v. State, 303 Md. 461, 465, 494 A.2d 934, 936 (1985). See, e.g., Turnpike Farm v. Curran, 316 Md. 47, 49, 557 A.2d 225, 226 (1989); Boyds Civic Ass'n v. Montgomery County, 309 Md. 683, 687 n. 2, 526 A.2d 598, 600 n. 2 (1987); Jennings v. Government Employees Ins., 302 Md. 352, 355, 356, 488 A.2d 166, 167–168 (1985); State v. Burning Tree Club, 301 Md. 9, 17, 481 A.2d 785, 789 (1984); Koontz v. Ass'n of Classified Emp., 297 Md. 521, 529, 467 A.2d 753, 758 (1983); Carroll Co. Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ., 294 Md. 144, 155–156, 448 A.2d 345, 351 (1982); East v. Gilchrist, 293 Md. 453, 461 n. 3, 445 A.2d 343, 347 n. 3 (1982); Mauzy v. Hornbeck, 285 Md. 84, 90–92, 400 A.2d 1091, 1095 (1979), and cases there