Bergerons V. Bergeron Case Summary

Prior to the Child Protection Act of 1984, which made the purchase of child pornography illegal, Keith Jacobson of Nebraska, ordered child pornography from a bookstore. At the time of the transaction, the purchase was legal under both state and federal laws. Following the establishment of the Child Protection Act, Jacobson’s name was noted on a mailing list form the bookstore where he made the purchase. The discovery of his name led to Government agencies and “pen pals” mailing Jacobson as a way to explore if he would break the law. The efforts began in 1985 and persisted for two and a half years. The mailings consisted of various questionnaires, and literature on the legalization of child pornography. One of the letters supplied Jacobson with a list of “pen pals” that had similar responses to the questionnaires; however, Jacobson did not initiate any contact with them. Following his failure to contact any of the names provided, the Government began to commence communication. Jacobson began to receive letters from these fictitious pen pals but stopped responding after only a couple of them. Government agencies also supplied Jacobson with various brochures advertising pornography of young males. After repeated efforts, Jacobson made the decision to make a purchase. He was arrested upon its delivery.

In Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, the Supreme Court considered “whether a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding may void a junior mortgage under § 506(d) when the debt owed on a senior mortgage exceeds the present value of the property.” Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, No. 13-1421, 575 U.S. ________ (2015). Under 11 U.S.C. § 506(d), debtors in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings may void liens which are not allowed “secured claim[s].” Specifically, Section 506(d) provides that, “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the

Harding further asks us to confirm that the trial judge complied with the requirements of Md. Rule 14-305(e) when she ratified the foreclosure sale. Furthermore, Harding petitions us to subpoena certain phone calls made between her and M & T Bank officials. Harding’s requests, however, are not properly presented before this appellate court. Moreover, Harding has failed to present an argument that would overcome the presumption of legitimacy we afford to the ratification of a foreclosure sale.

This case arises out of a foreclosure proceeding initiated in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City by substitute trustees Thomas P. Dore, Mark S. Devan, Gerard F. Miles, Jr., Shannon Menapace, and Erin Gloth (collectively, the “Substitute Trustees”), appellees. In the foreclosure proceedings, the Substitute Trustees filed an order to docket a foreclosure with respect to real property located at 3517 Woodstock Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21213 (“the Property”) owned by mortgagor Celeste Wenegieme (“Wenegieme”), appellant.

I chose these entries because they were the most challenging for me to complete. I feel

Does Richard Lehmann carry the rights as a bystander in which he can claim for damages to an incident where he did not initially perceive the accident but took part in saving his son as well as being in close relation to him as a father.

FACTS: Theadores W. Ross conveyed her home to Peter R. Cournoyer via a quitclaim deed. In addition to the standard statement consideration, i.e., “consideration of $10.00 and other valuable consideration,” the deed also stated, “This quitclaim deed is being given with the consideration being love and affection.” After the deed was recorded, Cournoyer sold the property to Luis and Gladys Perez for $50,000.00. The purchase money came from mortgage that the Perezs gave to Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association (plaintiff). Thereafter, Mrs. Ross brought suit to rescind and cancel her deed to Cournoyer citing the absence of valuable consideration.

After hearings on June 23rd and August 12th of 2015, Judge Richard Berman ruled to vacate Tom Brady’s four-game suspension on the morning of September 3rd . In his court document, Berman makes the following statement: For the reasons stated herein, the Management Council’s motion to confirm the arbitration award [ECF No. 4] is denied and the Player’s Association’s motion to vacate the arbitration award [ECF No. 28] is granted. Brady’s four-game suspension is vacated, effective immediately. The Clerk is respectfully requested to close cases 15 Civ. 5916 and 15 Civ. 5982. On October 27th, the NFL filed a 61-page brief in court that appealed Judge Berman’s decision in the Deflategate case. The NFL stated the Commissioner concluded that: “(1) Mr.

of the arrested persons. Some have had their Fourth Amendment rights violated due to searches that were erroneous

Here, the court is likely to hold, that Mr. Cylkowski was not in actual physical control of his truck. Mr. Cylkowski was in the passenger seat without the physical, logistical ability to exercise control and operation of his truck. Like the defendant in Brockman, our client entered on and was found on the passenger’s side of the vehicle. Furthermore, like the defendant’s truck in Brockman, there is a console in the center of the truck that creates a large barrier between the driver and passenger seats. It would be logistically impossible for Mr. Cylkowski to start the engine of the vehicle from the position in which he was found. Additionally, unless Mr. Cylkowski is a small man, he would have to exit the vehicle and enter from the driver’s

he issue that has come before the Court is whether or not the Christian tenets and prayer to a nondenominational God is in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The Court has ruled, based on tests developed from Lemon v. Kurtzman and Agostini v. Felton that both the Christian tenets and prayer in the Court is a violation of the First Amendments Establishment Clause.

Defendant was the alleged perpetrated a shooting subsequently the victim expired. The defense attorney requested a motion prohibiting the government from mentioning or offering into evidence any testimony regarding his prior criminal conviction for assault causing serious bodily injury, except to be brought forth in the court of Records. The defendant has previous assault and criminal convictions on his record and the attorney requested this to be suppressed.

The Court alone is authorized to determine legal duty according to Volpe v. Gallagher (2003). In this case, the Court considered several factors relevant to this case, including the relationship between the parties, the scope of obligation, and foreseeability of harm.

On January 20, 2006, Sucklal and Ella Louise Smith (“Smith”) purchased property located at 8511 Autumn Grain Gate, Laurel, Maryland 20723 (“the Property”). The deed was recorded on January 25, 2006. Sucklal and Smith held the property as tenants in common. Sucklal and Smith financed the purchase of the property, in part, with a loan in exchange for a note in the amount of $530,100.00, secured by a lien on the property. Freemont Investment & Loan was the originating lender for the mortgage. Through a series of conveyances, the note transferred through Avelo Mortgage and MTGLQ Investors, LP, and the note is currently held by Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (“GSMC”). Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (“Ocwen”) services the loan on behalf of GSMC.

The preacher continued to ramble on, but to him it all was a piece of shit.