UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2011 DANA W. JOHNSON DARIELYS PINTO
|
|
- Alexandra Underwood
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 549 September Term, 2011 DANA W. JOHNSON v. DARIELYS PINTO Watts, Davis, Arrie W. (Retired, Specially Assigned), Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Watts, J. Filed: September 20, 2012
2 This appeal concerns the denial by the Circuit Court for Prince George s County of a motion filed by appellant, Dana W. Johnson, to vacate an order modifying his child support obligation and ordering him to pay an alimony arrearage to Darielys V. Pinto, appellee. Appellant noted an appeal raising two issues, which we set forth verbatim: I. Balancing [a]ppellant s First Amendment Right of due process, in light of his sworn affirmation that [a]ppellee did not properly serve him notice of the Motion for Modification, with [a]ppellee s right to request modification of an existing order of support, whether the [c]ircuit [c]ourt should have determined if [a]ppellant s constitutional rights were properly safeguarded? Or in the alternative, whether [a]ppellant has recourse to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland to ensure protection of his constitutional right of due process in light of the [c]ircuit [c]ourt s failure to safeguard that right? II. Should [the m]aster have recused himself from the [c]ircuit [c]ourt proceedings in light of the fact that he and [a]ppellee previously worked together and was it proper for [the m]aster to grant [a]ppellee rehabilitative alimony when she did not request such in her Motion for Modification? For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 27, 1998, the parties were married in Prince George s County, Maryland. On 1 July 15, 1998, the parties had a child together, Anthony Breathand Johnson. On January 24, 2001, appellant filed a Complaint for Limited Divorce and Related Relief in the circuit court. On March 18, 2001, appellee filed an Answer to [Appellant] s Complaint for Limited Divorce and Related Relief. In an order dated April 23, 2002, the circuit court: (1) granted 1 The minor child s name was changed in the parties 2002 divorce decree from Breathand Balance Nuheritage to Anthony Breathand Johnson.
3 the parties an absolute divorce, (2) awarded sole legal and primary physical custody of Anthony to appellee, (3) ordered appellant to pay appellee $143 per month in child support, (4) ordered appellant to pay appellee $200 per month in rehabilitative alimony for twelve months, and (5) ordered that each party provide the other with any change in address. On October 27, 2010, appellee filed a Motion for Modification of Child Support and Other Relief, seeking: (1) an increase in the amount of child support commensurate with the Maryland Child Support Guidelines, (2) health, dental, and vision insurance for Anthony, and (3) such other and further relief as the nature of the [appellee] s cause may require and as may be just and proper. On the same day, appellee filed a request for a hearing on the motion and a request for summons to be issued to appellant. On October 27, 2010, the circuit court issued a Writ of Summons to appellant at an address on Woodbine Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the Woodbine Avenue address ). On November 22, 2010, according to a private process server s Return of Service, the Writ of Summons, Motion for Modification of Child Support and Other Relief, and other pertinent documents were served on appellant at the Woodbine Avenue address. Included in the Return of Service was an affidavit from the private process server stating his name, address, and telephone number, and attesting that he was over eighteen (18) years of age and [] not a party in this matter. The Return of Service described the individual served as follows: Age: 45, Sex: M, Race/Skin Color: BLACK, Height: 5'8, Weight: 200, Hair: BALD, Glasses: N[.] - 2 -
4 On February 14, 2011, appellee filed a Motion for Order of Default, stating that more than sixty (60) days ha[ve] elapsed since [appellant] was served and he has not filed an Answer with the [circuit c]ourt. Accompanying the Motion for Order of Default, appellee filed the private process server s Return of Service. On February 15, 2011, the circuit court entered an Order of Default against appellant. On February 22, 2011, the circuit court issued a Notice of Order of Default to appellant at the Woodbine Avenue address. On February 24, 2011, the circuit court issued a Notice of Hearing, scheduling a Modifications Hearing for March 28, The circuit court mailed the Notice of Hearing to appellant at the Woodbine Avenue address. On March 28, 2011, with a master presiding, the circuit court held a hearing, which appellant did not attend. On the same day, the circuit court mailed a Notice of the Master s Recommendations and proposed Order of Court to appellant at the Woodbine Avenue address. The proposed order stated, in pertinent part, as follows: It is by the Circuit Court for Prince George s County, Maryland, ORDERED, that [appellee] s Motion for Modification of Child Support and Other Relief filed October 27, 2010 be and is hereby granted; and it is further, ORDERED, that the Order of the Court dated April 23, 2002 be and hereby is modified to the extent that [appellant] pay to [appellee] the sum of $ per month for the support of the minor child, Anthony Breathand Johnson, born July 15, 1998, commencing November 1, ; and it is further, ORDERED, that the alimony arrearages be and hereby are assessed at $2, as of March 28, 2011; and it is further, - 3 -
5 ORDERED, that [appellant] is directed to pay $ per month towards the arrearages until the arrearages are paid in full. The Notice stated that if written exceptions [we]re not filed on or before April 11, 2011, the attached Order w[ould] be submitted to the [circuit c]ourt for approval. Appellant failed to file exceptions to the proposed order. On April 13, 2011, the circuit court entered the master s proposed order as the order of the circuit court. On May 5, 2011, appellant filed a Motion to Vacate the circuit court s order modifying support, alleging that he was not properly served notice of [appellee] s Motion to Modify Child Support in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of Maryland. On May 11, 2011, appellee filed an opposition to the Motion to Vacate. On May 18, 2011, the circuit court denied the Motion to Vacate. On May 23, 2011, appellant filed a Reply to Opposition to Motion to Vacate. In the reply, appellant argued as follows: The dispositive issue is whether or not [appellant] was provided notice [of the proceedings which are the subject of his Motion to Vacate for lack of service] in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and served pursuant to the Maryland Rules prior to being denied his property rights.... The answer to that is no. [Appellant] was not properly served and, in fact, does not fit the physical description of the person allegedly served [in the private process server s Return of Service]. On May 23, 2011, appellant noted a timely appeal
6 DISCUSSION I. Appellant contends that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his request to vacate the order modifying child support because he was not properly served with the Motion for Modification of Child Support and Other Relief. Appellee responds that the private process server s Return of Service is prima facie proof of valid service which cannot be rebutted by a simple denial of service. Appellee contends that the circuit court properly denied the Motion to Vacate, as appellant merely stated in the Motion to Vacate that he was not properly served without providing any evidence of a failure of service. In short, we agree. Appellate courts review the denial of a motion to vacate an enrolled judgment under an abuse of discretion standard. Bland v. Hammond, 177 Md. App. 340, 346 (2007) (citation omitted). Abuse of discretion may be found only where the decision by the trial court was arbitrary or prejudicial. See Neustadter v. Holy Cross Hosp. of Silver Spring, Inc., 418 Md. 231, 241 (2011). This standard is met when the decision under consideration [is] well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what the court deems minimally acceptable. Renbaum v. Custom Holding, Inc., 386 Md. 28, 43 (2005) (citation omitted) (alteration in original). Maryland Rule 2-121(a) states the general rule as to the service of process, in pertinent part, as follows: - 5 -
7 Service of process may be made within this State or, when authorized by the law of this State, outside of this State (1) by delivering to the person to be served a copy of the summons, complaint, and all other papers filed with it; (2) if the person to be served is an individual, by leaving a copy of the summons, complaint, and all other papers filed with it at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a resident of suitable age and discretion;... Service outside of the State may also be made in the manner prescribed by the court or prescribed by the foreign jurisdiction if reasonably calculated to give actual notice. (Emphasis added). If service is by delivery, the proof shall set forth the name of the person served, the date, and the particular place and manner of service. If service is made [by an individual other than a sheriff], the proof also shall set forth a description of the individual served and the facts upon which the individual making service concluded that the individual served is of suitable age and discretion. Md. R (a)(1). If service is made by an individual other than a sheriff, the individual also shall file proof under affidavit that includes the name, address, and telephone number of the affiant and a statement that the affiant is of the age of 18 or over. Md. R (a)(2). [A] proper return [of service] is prima facie evidence of valid service of process and a simple denial of service by the defendant is not sufficient to rebut the presumption arising from such a return. Roddy-Duncan v. Duncan, 157 Md. App. 197, 202 (2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). There may, however, exist external indications that the service of process should be reviewed for irregularities. Id. at 203 (This Court held that, although there was a proper return of service, the circuit court should have reviewed service of process because the private process server - 6 -
8 listed the same home address as the plaintiff, indicating that the private process server was not a disinterested party.). Maryland Rule 2-321(b)(1) states the rule as to the time for filing an answer by an outof-state party as follows: A defendant who is served with an original pleading outside of the State but within the United States shall file an answer within 60 days after being served. If an out-of-state party fails to file an answer within the sixty days prescribed by Maryland Rule 2-321(b)(1), that party may be subject to an order of default pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-613, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (b) Order of default. If the time for pleading has expired and a defendant has failed to plead as provided by these rules, the court, on written request of the plaintiff, shall enter an order of default. The request shall state the last known address of the defendant. (c) Notice. Promptly upon entry of an order of default, the clerk shall issue a notice informing the defendant that the order of default has been entered and that the defendant may move to vacate the order within 30 days after its entry. The notice shall be mailed to the defendant at the address stated in the request and to the defendant s attorney of record, if any. The court may provide for additional notice to the defendant. * * * (f) Entry of judgment.... [T]he court, upon request, may enter a judgment by default that includes a determination as to liability and all relief sought, if it is satisfied (1) that it has jurisdiction to enter the judgment and (2) that the notice required by section (c) of this Rule was mailed.... (g) Finality. A default judgment entered in compliance with this Rule is not subject to the revisory power under [Maryland] Rule 2-535(a) except as to the relief granted
9 Maryland Rule 2-535(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: On motion of any party filed within 30 days after entry of judgment, the court may exercise revisory power and control over the judgment and, if the action was tried before the court, may take any action that it could have taken under [Maryland] Rule [2] Returning to the instant case, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motion to Vacate. On February 14, 2011, appellee filed with the circuit court a private process server s Return of Service, attesting to service of process on appellant at the Woodbine Avenue address. In compliance with Maryland Rule 2-126(a)(1), the Return of Service included the following: (1) the name of the person served, (2) the date of service, (3) the place and manner of service, (4) a description of the individual served, and (5) the facts upon which the process server determined that the individual served was of suitable age and discretion. The private process server s Return of Service constituted prima facie evidence of valid service. Roddy-Duncan, 157 Md. App. at 202. In the Motion to Vacate, appellant alleged only that he was not properly served, and that he first learned of the motion upon receiving correspondence from the circuit court 2 Maryland Rule provides, in pertinent part, as follows: In an action decided by the court, on motion of any party filed within ten days after entry of judgment, the court may open the judgment to receive additional evidence, may amend its findings or its statement of reasons for the decision, may set forth additional findings or reasons, may enter new findings or new reasons, may amend the judgment, or may enter a new judgment
10 3 clerk s office. This denial of service, however, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption arising from [] a [proper] return of service. Id. Upon review of the record, we discern no external circumstances indicating that service of process should have been reviewed for irregularities. It is evident from the record that the Motion for Modification, the circuit court summons, the Notice of Order of Default, the Notice of Hearing, and the proposed Order of Court were all sent to the Woodbine Avenue address. This is the same address which appellant listed as his current address in the Motion to Vacate. The record reflects that appellant provided no evidence in the circuit court that he was not properly served with the Motion for Modification. We perceive no abuse of discretion in the circuit court s denial of the Motion to Vacate. II. Appellant contends that the master presiding at the March 28, 2011, hearing should have recused himself, as the master had previously worked with [a]ppellee[.] Appellant argues that the master s bias was evident in the order that appellant pay an alimony arrearage when appellee did not request such relief in her Motion for Modification. Appellee responds that the recusal issue is not properly before this Court because it was not raised in the circuit court. Alternatively, appellee contends that the issue of recusal 3 Appellant argues before this Court that he attested that he did not fit the physical description of the person allegedly served by [a]ppellee s third party agent. Appellant made this allegation, however, in the Reply to Opposition to Motion to Vacate filed on May 23, 2011, five days after the circuit court denied the Motion to Vacate
11 is not relevant because the final order of the circuit court was issued by a circuit court judge who had no prior relationship with appellee. Maryland Rule 9-208(a)(1)(H) permits a circuit court to refer modification of an existing order or judgment as to the payment of alimony or support to a master for domestic relations. [T]he master shall prepare written recommendations, which shall include a brief statement of the master s findings and shall be accompanied by a proposed order.... Promptly after notifying the parties, the master shall file the recommendations and proposed order with the circuit court. Md. R (e)(1). Within ten days after recommendations are placed on the record or served [on the parties], a party may file exceptions with the clerk.... Exceptions shall be in writing and shall set forth the asserted error with particularity. Any matter not specifically set forth in the exceptions is waived unless the circuit court finds that justice requires otherwise. Md. R (f) (emphasis added). [I]f exceptions are not timely filed, the circuit court may direct the entry of the order or judgment as recommended by the master. Md. R (h)(1)(B). In this case, appellant failed to raise an issue as to the master s recusal in the circuit court. Appellant did not attend the hearing over which the master presided, and, thus, made no motion at that hearing that the master recuse himself. Following the hearing, appellant failed to file exceptions to the master s proposed order an order which appellant concedes he received from the circuit court. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 9-208(f), in failing to file
12 exceptions to the master s recommendations, appellant waived both the issue of the master s recusal and the issue of the master s alimony order. We note that, in the Motion to Vacate the circuit court s order, appellant failed to raise either the issue of the master s recusal or the alimony award. Maryland Rule 8-131(a) provides that, [o]rdinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court[.] As neither the recusal nor the alimony award matters were raised in or decided by the circuit court, the issues are not preserved for appeal. Accordingly, this Court shall not address the matters. JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 L. B. WALKER A/K/A LEBON BRUCE WALKER ELLIOT N.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1072 September Term, 2014 L. B. WALKER A/K/A LEBON BRUCE WALKER v. ELLIOT N. LEWIS, TRUSTEE Kehoe, Leahy, Raker, Irma S., (Retired, Specially
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2011 SANDRA GILMORE JAMES GILMORE
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2690 September Term, 2011 SANDRA GILMORE v. JAMES GILMORE Eyler, Deborah S., Meredith, Kenney, James A., III (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2011 KENNETH L. BLACKWELL, SR. JOANNE BISQUERA, ET AL.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2681 September Term, 2011 KENNETH L. BLACKWELL, SR. v. JOANNE BISQUERA, ET AL. Krauser, C.J., Berger, Kenney, James A., III (Retired, Specially
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure having submitted its One Hundred Sixty-Fourth Report to the Court recommending
More informationCircuit Court for Washington County Case No. 21-K UNREPORTED
Circuit Court for Washington County Case No. 21-K-16-052397 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1469 September Term, 2017 BRITTANY BARTLETT v. JOHN BARTLETT, III Berger, Reed, Zarnoch,
More informationCircuit Court for Carroll County Case No. 06-C UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016
Circuit Court for Carroll County Case No. 06-C-16-070621 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2421 September Term, 2016 ANTONIO L. BROWN v. STATE OF MARYLAND, ET AL. Woodward, C.J.,
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1997 ANITA K. GRUSS LEOPOLDO GRUSS
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1556 September Term, 1997 ANITA K. GRUSS v. LEOPOLDO GRUSS Thieme, Sonner, Sweeney, Robert F. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Thieme,
More informationAmerican Tr. Ins. Co. v Batista 2016 NY Slip Op 30003(U) January 4, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Eileen A.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Batista 2016 NY Slip Op 30003(U) January 4, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651292/2015 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND Roderick Chavez, et al. Case Number: CAL 12-3774 Plaintiffs, v. Defendants. MOTION FOR ORDER OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT COME NOW, Plaintiffs, by and
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOSHUA MICHAEL DELEON, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 17, 2011 v No. 300353 Ingham Circuit Court Family Division LYDA JANELL DAVIS, LC No. 09-001593-DC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCircuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAL UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016
Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAL14-22596 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2340 September Term, 2016 GLADYS A. ANOKAM, ET AL. v. DYCK-O NEAL, INC. Woodward,
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 MARLENA JAREAUX GAIL R. PROCTOR, ET AL.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0322 September Term, 2015 MARLENA JAREAUX v. GAIL R. PROCTOR, ET AL. Woodward, Friedman, Sharer, J. Frederick (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
More informationRule 4. Process. (a) Summons Issuance; who may serve. Upon the filing of the complaint, summons shall be issued forthwith, and in any event within
Rule 4. Process. (a) Summons Issuance; who may serve. Upon the filing of the complaint, summons shall be issued forthwith, and in any event within five days. The complaint and summons shall be delivered
More informationThe State has the right to appeal when the trial judge grants a defendant's untimely motion for modification of sentence.
HEADNOTE: State of Maryland v. Donald Keith Kaspar, No. 1350, September Term, 1999 CRIMINAL LAW The State has the right to appeal when the trial judge grants a defendant's untimely motion for modification
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed June 27, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-1453 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1999 MORRIS HELMAN T/A BARCLAY NATIONAL MORTGAGE GROUP RUTH KIM
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 239 September Term, 1999 MORRIS HELMAN T/A BARCLAY NATIONAL MORTGAGE GROUP v. RUTH KIM Davis, Thieme, Kenney, JJ. Opinion by Thieme, J. Filed: February
More informationDeutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Stevens 2016 NY Slip Op 32404(U) December 7, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge:
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Stevens 2016 NY Slip Op 32404(U) December 7, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 104120/2008 Judge: Manuel J. Mendez Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationWhen should this form be used?
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORM 12.961 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT/ENFORCEMENT IN SUPPORT MATTERS (RULE 12.615) (09/18) When should this form be used? Use this
More informationRULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 5:5. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO CERTAIN JUDGMENTS
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 5:5. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO CERTAIN JUDGMENTS Rule 5:5-1. Discovery Except for summary actions and except as otherwise
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 RAYMOND RAYSOR, ET UX. VILLAGE GREEN MUTUAL HOMES, INC.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1312 September Term, 2014 RAYMOND RAYSOR, ET UX. v. VILLAGE GREEN MUTUAL HOMES, INC. Nazarian, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned),
More informationForm DC-429 TENANT S ASSERTION AND COMPLAINT Form DC-429
1. Copies a. Original to court. Using This Revisable PDF Form b. First copy to defendant. If more than one defendant, provide a copy for each defendant. c. Second copy to plaintiff. d. Additional copies
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, JOHN GARY BOWERS et ux. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2666 September Term, 2015 JOHN GARY BOWERS et ux. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. Krauser, C.J., Nazarian, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 03/16/2012 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI LOWE S HOME CENTER, INC. BRIEF OF APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
E-Filed Document Jan 13 2014 16:30:11 2013-CA-01004 Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ARTHUR GERALD HUDSON and LINDA HUDSON VS. LOWE S HOME CENTER, INC. APPELLANT CAUSE NO. 2013-CA-01004
More informationGENERAL INFORMATION FOR THOSE SEEKING A PROTECTION FROM ABUSE ORDER
GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THOSE SEEKING A PROTECTION FROM ABUSE ORDER 1. Before you can get a Protection from Abuse Order you and the person you want restrained must be intimate partners or household members.
More informationIC Chapter 2. Replevin
IC 32-35-2 Chapter 2. Replevin IC 32-35-2-1 Grounds for action Sec. 1. If any personal goods, including tangible personal property constituting or representing choses in action, are: (1) wrongfully taken
More informationRULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE NOTICE
RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the following amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure were adopted to take effect on January 1, 2019. The amendments were approved
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT SILVIO COZZETTO, Appellant, v. BANYAN FINANCE, LLC, et al., Appellees. No. 4D17-1255 [January 10, 2018] Appeal of a non-final order from
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) ), ) ) Defendant. )
, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No., Defendant. MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR GRANDPARENT VISITATION The Intervening grandparent(s,, show(s that he/ she/ they are entitled to intervene under O.C.G.A. 19-7-3(b in
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 01-CT Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (D )
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 7, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-418 Lower Tribunal No. 15-3834 Sean M. Coutts,
More informationBERMUDA 1971 : 38 CIVIL APPEALS ACT 1971
Laws of Bermuda BERMUDA 1971 : 38 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Interpretation 2 Appeals from court of summary jurisdiction to Supreme Court 3 Appeals; as of right or only with leave 4 Notice of intention
More informationCIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY FAMILY DIVISION. Differentiated Case Management Plan
CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY FAMILY DIVISION Differentiated Case Management Plan DRAFT July 5, 2016 This Family DCM Plan is instituted in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-202(b), which requires the
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 IN RE: MALIK L.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1500 September Term, 2014 IN RE: MALIK L. Meredith, Berger, Kenney, James A., III (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Berger, J. Filed:
More informationParties, Pleadings, and Notice
Chapter 4: Parties, Pleadings, and Notice 4.1 Parties 45 A. Petitioner B. Applicant C. Respondent D. Guardian ad litem and Counsel for Respondent E. Respondent s Next of Kin and Other Interested Persons
More informationThis appeal is the latest in a number of appeals arising from divorce and custody
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0735 September Term, 2013 MICHAEL ALLEN McNEIL v. SARAH P. McNEIL Meredith, Graeff, Leahy, JJ. Opinion by Graeff, J. Filed: August 15, 2014 This
More informationMassachusetts UCCJA Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B
Massachusetts UCCJA Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B 1. Definitions. As used in this chapter the following words, unless the context requires otherwise, shall have the following meanings:-- "Contestant", a person
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 ANTHONY JOHNSON STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0971 September Term, 2014 ANTHONY JOHNSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Arthur, Kenney, James A., III (Retired, Specially Assigned),
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 JEANNE ELLIS SAMIRA JONES
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2238 September Term, 2015 JEANNE ELLIS v. SAMIRA JONES Berger, Beachley, Sharer, J. Frederick (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion
More informationLowndes County Magistrate Court
Lowndes County Magistrate Court Legal Terms Glossary Action: Affiant: Affidavit: Affirmation: Agent for Landlord: Answer: Appeals: Bail: A court proceding when one party prosecutes another for the protection
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 20, 2010 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 20, 2010 Session LARA L. BATTLESON v. DEAN L. BATTLESON Appeal from the Chancery Court for Washington County No. 8094 G. Richard Johnson, Chancellor
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1A 1
1A-1. Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules of Civil Procedure are as follows: Chapter 1A. Rules of Civil Procedure. Article 1. Scope of Rules One Form of Action. Rule 1. Scope of rules. These rules shall
More informationThis case involves Maryland s Domestic Violence Act, Maryland. Code, through of the Family Law Article. Section
This case involves Maryland s Domestic Violence Act, Maryland 1 Code, 4-501 through 4-516 of the Family Law Article. Section 4-504 authorizes a person eligible for relief to petition for a protective order.
More informationLIFESTAR RESPONSE OF MARYLAND, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE APRIL 23, 2004 PEGGY VEGOSEN
PRESENT: All the Justices LIFESTAR RESPONSE OF MARYLAND, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No. 031376 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE APRIL 23, 2004 PEGGY VEGOSEN FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY Joanne F. Alper,
More informationJohnson v. State, No. 2987, September Term, Opinion by Matricciani, J. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR SENTENCE REVIEW
Johnson v. State, No. 2987, September Term, 2007. Opinion by Matricciani, J. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR SENTENCE REVIEW Criminal Procedure Article 8-103. Under CP 8-103 a party seeking a sentence
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Nos and September Term, 1994 SCOTT CARLE CRAIG. MARTHA A. GLASS No.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND Nos. 1390 and 1387 September Term, 1994 SCOTT CARLE CRAIG v. MARTHA A. GLASS No. 1390 RONALD LEE REED v. DELORES L. FOLEY No. 1387 Wilner,C.J. Alpert,
More informationINSTRUCTIONS FOR PRE-DECREE AND POST-DECREE MOTION FILINGS IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT (EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 16, 1996)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRE-DECREE AND POST-DECREE MOTION FILINGS IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT (EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 16, 1996) The Family Court of the First Circuit has amended the forms used to request pre-decree
More informationJONATHAN SCOTT SMITH v. LINDA CHERYL LUBER, NO. 2291, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004.
HEADNOTE JONATHAN SCOTT SMITH v. LINDA CHERYL LUBER, NO. 2291, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004. MARYLAND RULE 2-612, CONSENT JUDGMENT, LONG v. STATE, 371 MD. 72, 88 (2002); LOWER COURT ERRED BY ENTERING A MODIFIED
More informationPA Huntingdon Cty. Civ. LR 205 This document is current with amendments received through June 1, 2016
PA Huntingdon Cty. Civ. LR 205 Pennsylvania Local Rules of Court > HUNTINGDON COUNTY > RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule 205. Civil Case Management 1. The Huntingdon County Civil Case Management Plan. (a)
More informationSTANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES CHANGES. The Rules Committee has submitted its One Hundred Seventy-
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES CHANGES The Rules Committee has submitted its One Hundred Seventy- Fifth Report to the Court of Appeals, transmitting thereby
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 28, John D. Wintersteen respectfully
John D. Wintersteen 4702 E. Lincoln Drive Paradise Valley, AZ 85253 (602 808-9734 JDWintersteen@gmail.com IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF ARIZONA In the Matter of PETITION TO AMEND ARIZONA RULE OF CIVIL
More informationCOMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No., Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE Plaintiff, _ [Name], comes before this Court and shows this Court as follows:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ARTHUR BOUIER, D.O., Plaintiff/Garnishee Plaintiff- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2006 v No. 256288 Wayne Circuit Court RAMSEY DASS, M.D. and RENAISSANCE LC No. 99-924747-CK
More information!" #$ % # $ ##!# & '((!) * % ( * % '+ ( ((* % ,-- (- (. ) * % '(. ). * % () ) ( / &0#!!0 &102!
!"#$ % $!&& !" #$ % # $ ##!# & '((! * % ( * % '((* % '+ ( ((* %,-- (- (. * % '(.. * % ( ( / &0#!!0 &102! '! ( * +,., 3 4 5 6 (- - 7 768 4 6 74 4 9(: ;9 (%- ( 8:< 4,=. 4 8 #-!.. (?. +. @. (.. @ '+. (7(..
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 GERALD HYMAN, JR. STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0312 September Term, 2014 GERALD HYMAN, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND Kehoe, Leahy, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by
More informationTohono O odham Rules of Court
Tohono O odham Rules of Court Table of Contents Section 1. General Rules of Procedure Section 2. Rules of Civil Procedure Section 3. Rules of Criminal and Traffic Procedure Section 4. Children s Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA COA PATRICIA S. PEARSON BROWNING
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-CA-00790-COA DENNIS L. PEARSON APPELLANT v. PATRICIA S. PEARSON BROWNING APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/05/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. D. NEIL HARRIS
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT CHANCERY DIVISION CALENDAR 7 COURTROOM 2405 JUDGE DIANE J. LARSEN STANDING ORDER 2.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT CHANCERY DIVISION Chambers Telephone: 312-603-3343 Courtroom Clerk: Phil Amato Law Clerks: Azar Alexander & Andrew Sarros CALENDAR 7 COURTROOM
More informationIN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
2015 IL App (1st 143089 No. 1-14-3089 Opinion filed September 29, 2015 Second Division IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ILLINOIS SERVICE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO,
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 ERIC C. BALL DEADRA JACKSON
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1369 September Term, 2016 ERIC C. BALL v. DEADRA JACKSON Meredith, Beachley, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by
More informationJudgment Rendered AUG
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2006 CA 2032 WANDA CAROL JOHNSON BARTON VERSUS JOHN VERNON BARTON Judgment Rendered AUG 0 8 2007 Appealed from the 21st Judicial District Court In and
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
Rel: 07/10/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC18-984 IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS 12.961. PER CURIAM. September 27, 2018 Pursuant to the procedures approved in Amendments to
More informationWoodward, **Zarnoch, Friedman,
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1812 September Term, 2014 DAVID MSHANA v. JOHN S. BURSON, et al., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES Woodward, **Zarnoch, Friedman, JJ. Opinion by Zarnoch, J.
More informationChapter 355. (House Bill 728) Residential Property Foreclosure Required Documents Timing of Mediation
Chapter 355 (House Bill 728) AN ACT concerning Residential Property Foreclosure Required Documents Timing of Mediation FOR the purpose of requiring a notice of intent to foreclose for an owner occupied
More informationSTANDING ORDER. Judge Jerry A. Esrig Calendar R Courtroom 2208
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION STANDING ORDER Judge Jerry A. Esrig Calendar R Courtroom 2208 Chambers: (312) 603-6068 jerry.esrig@cookcountyil.gov Courtroom
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 919 SEPTEMBER TERM, LETITIA L. ELLIOTT et al.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 919 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1996 LETITIA L. ELLIOTT et al. v. SCHER, MUHER, LOWEN, BASS, QUARTNER, P.A., et al. Moylan, Cathell, Eyler, JJ. Opinion by Cathell,
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 RHEMA, LLC FORESITE, LLC. Meredith, Woodward, Leahy, JJ.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1274 September Term, 2014 RHEMA, LLC v. FORESITE, LLC Meredith, Woodward, Leahy, JJ. Opinion by Leahy, J. Filed: November 10, 2015 *This is an
More informationGRANDPARENT VISITATION FORM PACKET
GRANDPARENT VISITATION FORM PACKET In Georgia grandparents can ask the Superior Court for visitation rights by filing a Petition for Visitation. There are two ways for a grandparent to seek visitation.
More informationINSTRUCTIONS FOR FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORM (t) PETITION FOR INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST STALKING (11/15)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORM 12980(t) PETITION FOR INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST STALKING When should this form be used? If you are a victim of stalking, you can
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: April 7, 2016 521545 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LEVI PABON, Defendant.
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 August v. Mecklenburg County No. 09 CVD JACQUELINE MOSS, Defendant
NO. COA11-1313 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 August 2012 GREGORY K. MOSS, Plaintiff v. Mecklenburg County No. 09 CVD 19525 JACQUELINE MOSS, Defendant 1. Appeal and Error preservation of issues
More informationRULES CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF VIRGINIA RULES OF THE CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT 2006 Last Revised: October 3, 2017 TABLE OF RULES Rule 1... Terms of Court Rule 2... Holidays Rule 3... Cover Sheets for Filing
More informationELY SHOSHONE RULES OFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE
[Rev. 10/10/2007 2:43:59 PM] ELY SHOSHONE RULES OFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE I. APPLICABILITY OF RULES RULE 1. SCOPE, CONSTRUCTION OF RULES (a) Scope of Rules. These rules govern procedure in appeals to the Appellate
More informationCONTENTS OF PROPOSED TIME CALCULATION CHANGES TO COLORADO RULES COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULES 1-122). 2
CONTENTS OF PROPOSED TIME CALCULATION CHANGES TO COLORADO RULES (Effective 1/1/2012) COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULES 1-122). 2 COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULES 201-260).. 30 COLORADO RULES
More information25 8/15/05 2 7/ /17/06 3 4/ /24/06 4 4/ /21/06 5 8/ /1/07 6 1/22/ /21/08 7 1/22/ /18/09 8 1/26/98
WESTMORELAND COUNTY LOCAL RULES OF COURT SUPPLEMENTS RECORD Use the filing record below to ensure that your local rules of court are current. When each additional supplement is received, record the date
More informationHint: It s not a retrial
Hint: It s not a retrial Trial Courts are Courts of Fact: they make credibility determinations, find facts, take sworn testimony and have juries. The Court of Appeal is a Court of Law: We review the trial
More informationDISTRICT COURT DIVISION
Complaint: COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY OF CIVIL PENALTY PURSUANT TO N.C.G.S 45-36.3 1., _ and _ are citizens and residents of, and and are citizens and residents of. 2., is a with an office and doing business
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 KW 1859 VERSUS EARL LANE CONSOLIDATED WITH VERSUS DEBBIE LYNN LONG.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 KW 1859 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS EARL LANE CONSOLIDATED WITH STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DEBBIE LYNN LONG Appealed
More informationWhat does it mean to domesticate a foreign judgment?
What does it mean to domesticate a foreign judgment? Foreign means from another jurisdiction, usually another state. In order to register or enforce a foreign decree in Georgia, the decree must be domesticated.
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 07, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-604 Lower Tribunal No. 16-12031 Bryan Williams
More informationSUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ACT
c t SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and
More informationSAMPLE. Front Side of Citation To be Pre-Numbered in Top Right Margin (White "Court Copy" to have Bar-Code Displayed above Tracking Number)
UNIFORM CRIMINAL CITATION State of Maryland vs. Defendant's (Last) Name First Middle Current Address in Full City County State Zip Code DOB Height Weight Sex Race Ethnicity Hair Eyes Related Citations
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CV-518. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 119,293 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JOSIAH BUNYARD, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 119,293 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JOSIAH BUNYARD, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS and LARNED STATE HOSPITAL, Appellees. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from
More informationRULES OF THE TENNESSEE CLAIMS COMMISSION CHAPTER RULES OF PROCEDURE TABLE OF CONTENTS
RULES OF THE TENNESSEE CLAIMS COMMISSION CHAPTER-0310-1-1 RULES OF PROCEDURE TABLE OF CONTENTS 0310-1-1-.01 Applicability of Tennessee Rules 0310-1-1-.03 En Banc Hearings of Civil Procedure and Correlation
More information) Plaintiff ) ) Vs. ) Case No. ) ) Defendant ) ) ) Garnishee ) AFFIDAVIT FOR GARNISHMENT NON-WAGE
Plaintiff Vs. Case No. Defendant Garnishee AFFIDAVIT FOR GARNISHMENT NON-WAGE on oath states: 1. Judgment was entered on, 20, for judgment creditor and against judgment debtor for $ and costs. 2. $ has
More informationNEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. The New Hampshire Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules
NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The New Hampshire Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules will hold a PUBLIC HEARING at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, December 14,
More informationConstitutional review by district court of administrative decisions and orders. A. Scope of rule. This rule governs writs of certiorari to
1-075. Constitutional review by district court of administrative decisions and orders. A. Scope of rule. This rule governs writs of certiorari to administrative officers and agencies pursuant to the New
More informationCHECKLIST FOR RULE 61 APPEALS TO AN APPEAL DIVISION I N D E X Certificate or Agreement Respecting Evidence
CHECKLIST FOR RULE 61 APPEALS TO AN APPEAL DIVISION I N D E X 61.02 Leave to Appeal 61.03 Commencement of Appeals 61.04 Certificate or Agreement Respecting Evidence 61.05 Cross-Appeals 61.06 Amendment
More informationDEFINITIONS PAPERWORK IN YOUR CASE
For distribution by Brevard County, Florida, Clerk of the Court and other court personnel to all persons who seek a MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE (DIVORCE) OR OTHER ORDER but
More informationTermination of Guardianship Minor. Forms and Procedures. For Wyoming MOVANT
Packet 16 Termination of Guardianship Minor Forms and Procedures For Wyoming MOVANT Published by Wyoming Supreme Court 2301 Capitol Avenue Supreme Court Building Cheyenne, WY 82002 Termination of Guardianship
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DENISE CROWNOVER, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D07-3431 MASDA CORPORATION,
More informationNo. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY. [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment]
No. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 132 September Term,
More informationINSTRUCTIONS FOR FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORM (f) PETITION FOR INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST REPEAT VIOLENCE (11/15)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORM 12.980(f) PETITION FOR INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST REPEAT VIOLENCE (11/15) When should this form be used? If you or a member of your
More informationPART IV Pretrial, Trial, and Posttrial
PART IV Pretrial, Trial, and Posttrial CHAPTER 14 Settlements, Dismissals, and Alternative Dispute Resolution SETTLEMENT OFFERS Pennsylvania prefers that the parties be able to reach a settlement of their
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT SERGIO MARTINS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.
More informationCase 1:10-cr DNH Document 36 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 1:10-cr-00600-DNH Document 36 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 5 MANDATE 11-3647-cr United States v. Keenan UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed April 29, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-1299 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Fluitt v. Fluitt, 2014-Ohio-4442.] COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT KRISTEN FLUITT : JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer,
More information