¶1 Clark E. Rice and his mother, Edythe Rice, appeal from the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court’s judgment holding Clark and Edythe jointly and severally liable for injuries sustained by Juanita Stands and Vianna Stewart during a vehicular collision.

¶2 We address the following issues on appeal:

¶3 1. Whether Clark is entitled to a new trial and a new judge based

[¶1] Tammi Wai-Ping Verheydt (Wife) and Raymond Alexander Verheydt (Husband) were divorced by decree entered February 27, 2012. Husband appeals, claiming the district court abused its discretion in imputing his monthly income and ordering him to pay child support for several months when he was living in the marital home after Wife filed for divorce and ordering him to pay half the cost of the c

The State of Oklahoma charged Steve Lee Allen domestic assault and battery in violation of 21 O.S. 644 which provides:

A. Assault shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding thirty (30) days, or by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.



B. Assault and battery shall be punishable by imprison

Angela Stevens and Phillips Stevens, Jr., individually and as husband and wife, sued International House of Pancakes, LLC, DineEquity, Inc., 1485, Inc. d/b/a IHOP #1485, and Heather N. Boatner on premises liability theories claiming:

1. At all times relevant to the particulars of this case, Defendants, International House of Pancakes, L.L.C., DineEquity, Inc.. and 1485, Inc., were in poss

Scott Andochick brought this declaratory judgment action, asserting that ERISA preempted a state court order requiring him to turn over benefits received under ERISA retirement and life insurance plans owned by his deceased ex-wife, Erika Byrd. ERISA obligates a plan administrator to pay plan proceeds to the named beneficiary, here Andochick. The only question before us is whether ERISA prohibits

The State of Oklahoma charged Kevin Wayne McCage with endangering others while eluding or attempting to elude police officer in violation of 21 O.S. 540; falsely impersonating another to create liability in violation of 21 O.S. 1531; resisting an officer in violation of 21 O.S. 268; driving with license suspended in violation of 47 O.S. 6-303.

Title 21 O.S. 540 provides:

A. Any oper

[¶1] While a lawsuit by Appellees David and Elizabeth Speaks was pending against Rosemary and Byron Baker, the Bakers transferred two parcels of real property to their son Nathan. The original case resulted in a judgment against Byron, but a dismissal of the claims against Rosemary. Appellees’ judgment against Byron was upheld on appeal. After learning of the decision in that case

This case is before the Court on appeal from a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Bolin’s conviction and sentence.

OVERVIEW

Oscar Ray Bolin, Jr., was convicted of the first-degree murder of Stephanie Collins and sentenced to death. This Court t

In this appeal from an agreed final decree of divorce, appellant Donna Joann Torres asserts that the trial court erred by denying her motion for new trial. Specifically, she alleges that appellee Frank Rolon Torres defrauded her by failing to disclose during mediation his intention to seek to ―transform‖ his military retirement benefits into VA disability benefits. We affirm.

This is an appeal from a divorce and child-custody jury trial. By eleven issues— which we consolidate into five—appellant Robert Scott Howell contends that the trial court erred by: (1) making an improper comment on the evidence; (2) overruling several of his evidentiary objections; (3) overruling his expert challenge; and (4) overruling his motion for judgment notwithstanding the ve

The State of Oklahoma charged John Scott Jones, age 61, with rape by instrumentation in violation of 21 O.S. Section 1111.1; Assault and battery with a deadly weapon in violation of 21 O.S. Section 652; Kidnapping in violation of 21 O.S. Section 741; domestic assault and battery by strangulation in violation of 21 O.S. Section 644 as a result of attacking a woman who lived in the same apartment co

The State of Oklahoma charged Jason Eric Gomez domestic assault and battery in violation of 21 O.S. 644; interference with emergency telephone call in violation of 21 O.S. 1211.1; and resisting an officer in violation of 21 O.S. 268.

Title 21 O.S. 644 provides:

A. Assault shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding thirty (30) days, or by a fine of not mor

¶1 David Jefferson (“Father”) appeals from the family court’s decree of dissolution of his marriage to Jennifer Jefferson (“Mother”). He challenges custody, parenting time, 2 and spousal maintenance, among other orders and findings. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and remand in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Fat

This case involves visitation rights awarded under
ORS 109.119 to a nonparent of a minor child.1 In 2007,
petitioner, by a default judgment, obtained visitation rights
with respect to the child. Respondent, the child’s mother,
later moved to set aside the default judgment pursuant to
ORCP 71 B, and the trial court denied that motion. The
relationship between the part

2 Wife appeals a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage, raising two
assignments of error.1 3 First, she contends that the trial court erred in awarding husband,
4 the noncustodial parent, the right to claim tax exemptions for their dependent children or,
5 alternatively, that the court erred in failing to consider and make findings regarding the
6 effect of that award on husban

2 Mother appeals a denial of her motion to modify an award of custody of her
3 child, M, from her father and stepmother (grandparents) to her. She asserts that the trial
4 court erroneously applied ORS 109.119(2)(c) to this proceeding or, alternatively, if the
5 court properly applied ORS 109.119(2)(c), that statute is unconstitutional as applied to
this circumstance.1 6 She furthe

In this appeal arising from their suit for divorce, appellant Robert Price Brent IV (husband) complains of an award on a promissory note in favor of appellee, Elizabeth Jane Brent (wife). By cross-appeal, wife challenges the amount of prejudgment interest awarded in her favor on the note. We will affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Background

In the divorce proceeding, wife sough

Stephen P. (father), the adoptive father of S.P. (the minor), appeals from the trial court‟s order granting the petition of the adoptive mother of the minor, E.P. (mother), to terminate father‟s parental rights to the minor under Family Code section 78271 (mental disability). According to father, the trial court committed per se reversible error when it failed to order and consider an

Lisa Lenihan sued Mary Beth Smith, individually and as trustee of the Edmond P. Lenihan Revocable Trust on a constructive trust theory claiming:

A. Petitioner and her now deceased ex-husband. Edmond P. Lenihan, (hereinafter “Decedent”)
entered into an Agreed Decree of Dissolution of Marriage in September, 2009, (hereinafter
“Decree”) which was filed of reco

This is a divorce case. Appellant Carlos A. Puntarelli argues that (1) the trial court deprived him of his constitutional right to a jury trial on the issue of division of the parties’ marital estate, and (2) there is insufficient evidence to support various aspects of the trial court’s property division. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Puntarelli filed an Original Petition for D

Eric Duke and Bernard Kurlemann sold expensive homes to straw buyers who had little income and insufficient cash to make down payments on the sales. The effective buyers, once the scheme unraveled and the buyers defaulted, became the banks. Federal prosecutors caught wind of the deception and charged Duke and Kurlemann with making false statements to a lending institution and on top of that charge

This bankruptcy appeal asks whether a $43,675.50 debt (the “Debt”) that Appellant Kenneth Kinkade (“Kinkade”) owes his now-ex wife Irene Porter Kinkade (“Porter”) is dischargeable in bankruptcy. Relying on Section 523(a)(15) of the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy court—and the district court on appeal—answered no. We agree, and AFFIRM the judgment

Appellants Joe Requa, Wendell G. Moen, Jay Davis, and Donna Ventura (hereafter collectively Retirees) all spent decades working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Livermore). During their employment there, Livermore was operated by the University of California (the University or UC), a state agency governed by the Regents of the University of California (the Regents). After retiring fr

Tiela Chalmers and Michael F.,1 the biological parents of Eliana F., entered into a contract to share custody of Eliana. At the time of Eliana‟s birth, Tiela was in a relationship with Lisa Hirschkop. In 2008, after Tiela and Lisa had terminated their relationship, Lisa filed a request as a stepparent pursuant to Family Code section 3101 for visitation with Eliana.2 The court‟s order o

This is the third appeal we consider in this marital dissolution action between Richard Turkanis and Joan M. Price. In the first appeal, we considered the trial court‟s order after the first of two phases of trial. The purpose of this first phase of trial was to set the value at the date of marriage of a closely held corporation (Radman) formed by Turkanis prior to marriage (the valuation tr