The Court For Montgomery County Granting Appellee 's, Community Homes Housing, Inc.

* The trial court granted Austin's motion and directed a verdict on the grounds that Ms. Greer had not proved the proper execution of the codicil.

4. Issue/s: Was it an error for the trial judge to accept a guilty plea without confirmation from the defendant that the plea was understood and voluntary?

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Sutter County, Perry Parker, Judge. Reversed, in part; remanded, in part; and affirmed, in part.

We have repeatedly held that a verdict may not be directed unless the evidence all points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inference

The City filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) asserting that Hirst was not a City employee, a special employee or an individual providing services as outlined in a contract. The City’s JNOV motion was denied by the trial court and the Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling.

On April 20, the District of Columbia Court of Appeal decided in the case “S. Brooke Purll Inc. v. Vailes” to reverse a trial court judgment and to remand it for further proceedings. The case was a dispute between a contractor - S. Brooke Purll, Inc.- and a house’s owner Patrick Darrell Vailes -. The latter sued in the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch for the return of a $5000 payment as an initial payment for the contract while the latter counterclaimed $36.102.04 for liquidated damages. The judge found that the owner failed to perform a demolition and to pay $ 7,031.71. It also determined that the liquidated damages clause was a penalty and, therefore, was not enforceable. It also found that the lost profits damages were not proven and

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

United States HUD, I was astonished that the Valentine and Park Properties lost, and the HUD won the case. I thought it was unprofessional that HUD did not give a notice to Valentine and Park Properties when the additional changes were made in the 30-year contract. This unlawful decision made by the HUD was not planned properly, which almost jeopardize their HAP contract with Valentine and Park Properties. It was imprudent when an agency does not give a notice which is a violation of the APA. In some case, agencies tend to violate the procedures in the APA, due to the lack of knowledge. I thought that was strange that the court did not say anything about HUD’s violation referring to not giving a notice to the Valentine and Park Properties. It was also stated in the case, that if Valentine and Park Properties gets a score below 30 it was considered failing since it was below 60. It seemed like HUD were setting Valentine and Park Properties up because they did not know the requirement was changed. Overall, even though Valentine and Park Properties lost the court case I believe that they could have won the case if the claim was not moot. I also believe that if the Valentine and Park Properties had a better understanding of the constitutional laws, around the time when the changes were made than they would have won the

ISSUE: The question before the court is, according to Indiana Statute, did the trial court erroneously deny the maternity petition, which sought to establish V as the legal mother of Baby R.?

Facts. In 2011, the Department of General Services (DGS) opened a bid for the electrical jobs of the Family Court Project, and, Hampton Technologies, Inc. d.b.a. Gordon Group Electric responded DGS’ Request for Proposal (RFP) as a lowest offer. However, DGS gave the $20 million contract to Farfield Company because Hampton Technologies had earned low points in several categories based on the evaluating system; moreover, DGS also did not allow Hampton Technologies to review the result sheets. Therefore, Hampton instantaneously filed a protest to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

To successfully find the correct solution to an issue, one must seek every possible approach of analysis. My colleagues have all approached this topic in several different manners and reached the same conclusion. However, there are additional considerations not yet made by this court and those must be contemplated before I can reach the same ends.

Whether the trial court erred when it interpreted, in favor of USF, conflicting and ambiguous paragraphs of the Agreement, which were drafted by and contained in USF’s standard Water Service Agreements.

PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for LaCrosse county: WALTER S. BLOCK, Judge. Affirmed.

Judgement: The court of first instance ruled in favour of Mr. Grant saying that the first and the sixth emails amounted to an enforceable contract but the court of appeal overruled the judgement based on

On the several points raised by the defendant, the Privy Council gave the following decision: