3250 search results for query

Citation: 97 F. Supp. 2d 665 | Docket No.: C.A.No. 98-25
Status: Published | Citing: 35
Summary: 97 F. Supp. REPORT A. Relevant Factual and Procedural History Austen O. Nwanze, a federal prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution at *667 McKean ("FCI-McKean") in Bradford, Pennsylvania, brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his conviction and sentence imposed in the Eastern District of Virginia for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See United States v. Hayden, more.

Citation: 98 F. Supp. 470 | Docket No.: Civ. A. Nos. 7089, 7090
Status: Published | Citing: 3
Summary: 98 F. Supp. I give and bequeath to Fidelity Trust Company, of Pittsburgh, a Pennsylvania corporation having its domicile in the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and to my wife, Lillian Conner Kress, or the survivor of them, all shares of the capital stock of the F. J. Kress Box Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation, (sometimes hereinafter called the `Company') to me belonging at the date of my death, they to have and to hold the same in trust, for the following uses and more.

Citation: 279 F. Supp. 283 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 67-972
Status: Published | Citing: 30
Summary: 279 F. Supp. Plaintiff has brought this two-count action for redress of the alleged deprivation, *285 under color of Pennsylvania law, of rights, privileges or immunities secured to her by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and for recovery of damages for the alleged conspiracy of defendants to deprive her of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, as provided by §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, Title 42 U.S.C. The more.

Citation: 454 F. Supp. 960 | Docket No.: Crim. No. 77-275
Status: Published | Citing: 5
Summary: 454 F. Supp. Dr. Rongas' statement was admitted into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3). For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit does not recognize the exception at all, U. S. v. Brandenfels, 522 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir.

Citation: 785 F. Supp. 533 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 90-842
Status: Published | Citing: 5
Summary: 785 F. Supp. Pinemont Bank v. Belk, 722 F.2d 232 (5th Cir.1984); Moore, J. and Lucas, J., 5 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 39.09 at 39-21 (1st Ed.1991). Sullivan v. School Board of Pinellas County, 773 F.2d 1182 (11th Cir.1985) (denial affirmed where demand was made two years after the last pleading was served, plaintiff gave no reason for delay, and a jury trial would prejudice defendant and disrupt the court's schedule).

Citation: 648 F. Supp. 292 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 85-819
Status: Published | Citing: 9
Summary: 648 F. Supp. Keller v. Bluemle, 571 F. Supp. 735 F.2d 1349 (3d Cir.1984); Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1095, 67 L. Ed. See Miller v. General Electric Company, 562 F. Supp.

Citation: 496 F. Supp. 616 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 79-593
Status: Published | Citing: 4
Summary: 496 F. Supp. On February 11, 1977, Donald F. McLaughlin, President of Del Boring, applied for two policies of flood insurance through the Widmann-Fronheiser Insurance Agency (Widmann Agency). Discussion FEMA premises its motion for summary judgment on two alternative grounds: (1) plaintiff's letter of February 17, 1977, and its submission of a cancellation form on March 8, 1977, coupled with the return of the insurance policies on July 15, 1977, constituted a cancellation of the contract of more.

Citation: 715 F. Supp. 711 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 87-2317
Status: Published | Citing: 13
Summary: 715 F. Supp. Plaintiff Dennis J. Stebok brought this action against his employer, American General Life and Accident Insurance Company, also known as American General Insurance Company (AGLA), pursuant to the Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. § 260.1, et seq. (WPCL), for wages and benefits allegedly due under his employment contract. AGLA now moves for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff is not entitled to the claimed wages or benefits under the terms of the employment contract, more.

Citation: 83 F. Supp. 914 | Docket No.: 2991
Status: Published | Citing: 7
Summary: 83 F. Supp. January 9, 1933, this court dismissed the bill for the reason that defendant had not infringed the patent of plaintiff on account of the license contract of June 20, 1927, 3 F. Supp. The Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Buffington, C. J., 3 Cir., 68 F.2d 564, stated: "* * * is the defendant, which has not surrendered or canceled the license, and is now enjoying the monopoly of the patent, warranted in asking this court in this appeal to convict the court below of error in more.

Citation: 662 F. Supp. 952 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 87-287
Status: Published | Citing: 9
Summary: 662 F. Supp. In the absence of equitable considerations, the delivery of the EEOC's notice to plaintiff's home address triggers the start of the 90 day period, even though plaintiff does not actually receive the notice until some time later, Espinoza, 754 F.2d 1247; Law v. Hercules, Inc., 713 F.2d 691 (11th Cir.1983) (receipt by 17 year old son); Bell v. Eagle Motor Lines, 693 F.2d 1086 (11th Cir.1982) (receipt by wife); Mouriz v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 428 F. Supp.

Citation: 467 F. Supp. 75 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 77-1332
Status: Published | Citing: 4
Summary: 467 F. Supp. *77 This separate transaction involved Thermo King's sale in December, 1970 of allegedly defective truck refrigeration units to Strick; Strick installed the units in trucks and sold them to Quinn Freight Lines, Inc. ("Quinn") in May, 1971. On the theory that Thermo King, as the original manufacturer of the refrigeration units, was primarily liable to Quinn, Strick set off the $15,000 against the purchase price for the acceptable goods Thermo King had shipped to it in 1974. Strick, more.

Citation: 380 F. Supp. 912 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 73-757
Status: Published | Citing: 10
Summary: 380 F. Supp. 912 (1974) M & N MEAT COMPANY, a corporation, t/d/b/a M & N Meat Company, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BONELESS BEEF CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant. Gorso v. Bell Equipment Corporation, 476 F.2d 1216 (3rd Cir. 1968); Electric Regulator Corp. v. Sterling Extruder Corp., 280 F. Supp. *916 They cite to the Court the cases of Millar Bros. & Co. v. Armour and Company, 144 F. Supp. Aquarium Pharm., Inc. v. Industrial Press & Pack., Inc., 358 F. Supp.

Citation: 106 F. Supp. 147 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 7811
Status: Published | Citing: 12
Summary: 106 F. Supp. *148 Daniel S. Ring (of McDaniel & Ring), Washington D. C., Harvey F. Sloan (of Griggs, Moreland, Blair & Douglass), Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff. These shares of stock were seized and vested in the Alien Property Custodian on January 15, 1944, by Vesting Order No. 2953 as the property of a national of a designated enemy country, namely, Schloemann Aktiengesellschaft (also hereinafter referred to as SAG), a German corporation with principal offices at Dusseldorf, Germany. more.

Citation: 403 F. Supp. 1189 | Docket No.: Crim. A. No. 72-193
Status: Published | Citing: 20
Summary: 403 F. Supp. These involve six interceptions of calls between Michael Ciamacco, Jr. and phones registered to the following parties on the following dates: 12-11-71 D'Angelo Phone No. 643-8168 12-18-71 D'Angelo Phone No. 643-8168 12-19-71 D'Angelo Phone No. 643-8168 1-22-72 Acon Phone No. 643-8201 1-24-72 Acon Phone No. 643-8200 2-15-72 Acon Phone No. 643-1407 The grounds of the motion are that Defendant Michael Ciamacco, Jr. was not identified in the more.

Citation: 76 F. Supp. 233 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 3605
Status: Published | Citing: 14
Summary: 76 F. Supp. The motion for a new trial filed pursuant to Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth as follows: "And now, March 8, 1947, comes the plaintiff above named and respectfully represents to this Honorable Court: "(1) That on February 28, 1947, a judgment was entered in the above case in favor of the defendant as follows: `Now this 28th day of February, 1947, the Complaint or Bill in Equity filed for the cancellation of the deed referred to therein is refused, and more.

Citation: 694 F. Supp. 125 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 88-57
Status: Published | Citing: 63
Summary: 694 F. Supp. 125 (1988) Judy Grove SOWERS, Plaintiff, v. BRADFORD AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT; Frederick Smith, in his individual and official capacity as Principal of the Bradford Area High School; Richard Miller, in his individual and official capacity as Assistant Principal of the Bradford Area High School; and Frederick Shuey, in his individual and official capacity as Superintendent of the Bradford Area School District, Defendants. Count I of the complaint is against the school district and more.

Citation: 690 F. Supp. 1439 | Docket No.: Civ. A. Nos. 85-68, 86-270
Status: Published | Citing: 18
Summary: 690 F. Supp. In particular, plaintiff argues that, in addition to the recoveries permitted under the policy, he should also receive, as consequential damages, the increase in the cost of repair and replacement of the property resulting from economic inflation, deterioration of the building and the change in building codes during the delay in his receipt of the insurance proceeds. In addition, he seeks consequential damages for: (1) the depreciation in the value of the Market Street property more.

Citation: 967 F. Supp. 852 | Docket No.: C.A. Nos. 96-414E, 96-424E
Status: Published | Citing: 10
Summary: 967 F. Supp. The ST. MARYS AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, William J. Williams, personally and in his official capacity as Superintendent of St. Marys Area School District, Elaine A. Lee, personally and in her capacity as the Special Education Supervisor at St. Marys Area School District, Paul J. Robertson, personally and in his official capacity as Supervisor of Pupil Personnel and Administrative Services, Susan McDonough, personally and in her official capacity as a Learning Support Teacher at St. more.

Citation: 706 F. Supp. 405 | Docket No.: Civ. A. No. 85-939
Status: Published | Citing: 10
Summary: 706 F. Supp. This Social Security disability case comes back to us on remand from the Court of Appeals for recomputation of an appropriate attorneys fee award. Coup v. Heckler, 834 F.2d 313 (3d Cir.1987). Also the claim of plaintiff's counsel for fees under Section *407 206 of the Social Security Act is mooted by the higher award under EAJA. Plaintiff then filed a petition for an award of attorneys fees under both the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and the Social Security more.