ffiassdot Massachusetts Department of Transportation
|
|
- Bartholomew Nelson
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Dr:,'t'.. l,'lj.'. / G,~.';~. JI' B. M, t '\" ~rr~ S ~~op"i' <, c~o ffiassdot Massachusetts Department of Transportation To: Secretary Jeffrey B. Mullan, MassDOT r fr From: Stephen H. Clark, Administrative Law J g Date: April 8, 2010 Re: Report and Recommendation I am pleased to submit for your consideration and approval the attached report and recommendation. N.E.L., Inc. (NEL) seeks $16, for work that was apparently omitted from the pay items and specifications of contract #3941 for emergency repair of bridges in District 4. The Contract provided that NEL take no advantage of an error in the plans or specifications and obliged it to "immediately notify the engineer" of omissions. NEL knew of the apparent omissions before it bid but did not notify the engineer or take action that would have allowed the engineer to correct errors and publish clarifications to all prospective bidders. A contractor must inquire if he finds an obvious error. Ifa contractor fails to at least ask for clarification before bid he may not rely on the principle that errors, omissions and ambiguities may be held against the government drafter. Because NEL did not ask the Engineer for corrections but acted to take advantage of the omissions it believed existed it is barred from recovery. John F. Miller Co., Inc v. George Fichera Construction Corp., 7 Mass. App. Ct. 494, 499 (1979). I recommend that NEL's appeal be denied. T:NP,\IIKPlALf\ 8om)N,MA PHON.:: F/\x: TOO:
2 INTRODUCTION N.E.L., Inc. (NEL) appeals from two decisions of the claims committee (Committee) of MassHighway, 1 which denied six (6) claims arising under contract #39741 (Contract). The Contract was awarded to NEL on May 12, 2005 for emergency repair and maintenance of all bridges in District 4. The Committee first denied NEL s claim for extra work of $2, for these tasks: (1) jacking and shoring of existing stringers; (2) highway guard removal and reset; (3) fence removal and reset; (4) temporary precast concrete median barrier; (5) cleaning of pier caps/abutments of debris left behind by other contractors. The Committee then denied extra work of $14, to (6) remove and reset guardrail and Jersey barriers. 2 The unpaid work is referred to as Claimed Extra Work or Omitted Tasks. NEL argues that the Claimed Extra Work was not specified in the Contract. Though the Omitted Tasks were necessary to perform the Contract, it argues the Contract specifications were defective because no plain language or separate bid pay item identified the Omitted Tasks, as had been done in previous District 4 emergency-maintenance bridge contracts. NEL points out that the Omitted Tasks were entirely absent from Special Provision 905.2, Cement Concrete Masonry. MassHighway responds that the Omitted Tasks were included within Special Provision because they were incidental to cement concrete masonry work on the theory that it is not possible to excavate or replace concrete without them. MassHighway also contends that NEL can not claim extra work in any event because it failed before it bid to 1 On November 1, 2009, the Massachusetts Highway Department was reorganized as the Highway Division of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassHighway). See G.L. c. 6C, s Claims 1 through 5 were decided in the Committee s first ruling on March 6, 2006; claim 6 in the Committee s second ruling on December 17, The appeals are consolidated here. 1
3 notify the Engineer of the obvious apparent omissions in the specifications, which Subsection 5.04 of the Standard Specifications requires. I conclude that it is unnecessary to determine whether the specifications were defective or whether NEL performed extra work because NEL failed to adhere to the requirements of the Contract. Subsection 5.04 prohibited NEL from taking advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans and specifications and placed on it the affirmative obligation to immediately notify the Engineer of errors or omissions it discovered so that the Engineer could make needed corrections or interpretations. When NEL discovered before it bid that obvious tasks needed to excavate and replace concrete to perform bridge repair were apparently missing, it did not notify the Engineer. NEL prevented MassHighway from correcting obvious omissions or clarifying the intent of the Contract to all prospective bidders. Accordingly, NEL is barred from recovery. John F. Miller Co., Inc. v. George Fichera Construction Corp., 7 Mass. App. Ct. 494, 499 (1979). BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS NEL submitted the winning bid of $2,052,042 for the Contract to perform scheduled and emergency repairs on all bridges in District 4. The specific bridges in need of repair were not identified in the bid documents; bidders were notified that locations were to be stated at the preconstruction conference. The Contract generally described the work to be performed as (1) removing deteriorated concrete from stem piers, pier caps, pier columns, wing walls, back walls and abutments; (2) replacing excavated concrete and damaged reinforcing steel with new materials, as specified; (3) replacing existing but damaged slope paving with cement concrete slope paving, as directed, and (4) providing related traffic control. Contract at A
4 NEL and MassHighway disagree about what work is described (or not described) in Special Provision 905.2, Cement Concrete Masonry. 3 Special Provision provides, among other things The work under this Item 905 consists of excavating existing areas, as identified by work order or as directed by the Engineer, and placing 30 Mpa, 10 mm, 425 kg cement concrete masonry of the excavated areas. The Basis of Payment for Item provides: All labor, excavation of existing reinforced concrete, materials including bonding grout, tools, equipment, engineering services and incidentals necessary to complete the work [which] consists excavating existing areas, and placing concrete also consists of the removal and disposal of all deteriorated and spalled concrete located at the existing surfaces of the various substructure units. (Emphasis added.) The Method of Measurement for Item states the work shall be measured by the cubic meter [of concrete], complete in place and accepted. NEL is an experienced public contractor that has successfully bid and performed many MassHighway district-wide emergency bridge repair and maintenance contracts. NEL knew before it bid that the specifications of MassHighway maintenance contracts varied from district to district. Mr. Galasso, a corporate officer of NEL, prepared NEL s bid. After reviewing the bid documents Mr. Galasso came to believe that a description of six tasks--the Omitted Tasks-- which had previously been separate bid items on District 4 emergency bridge repair contracts was entirely absent. Mr. Galasso noted that Item paid for both excavation and 3 The parties argue whether the Omitted Tasks were included in Item Their dispute centers on the meaning of the word incidental found in Special Provision NEL contends the Omitted Tasks can only be incidental to a unit price bid item when explicitly stated, since a careful description of the work item [is] imperative. It says MassHighway s arguments are patently untenable because neither party knew whether the Omitted Tasks would be required at all or in what quantities. MassHighway counters that it intended that all work required to excavate and replace concrete was paid by Item as contractors knew that work could never be performed otherwise. A resolution of this dispute is not necessary in order to decide this appeal. 3
5 replacement of cement concrete but did not expressly refer to any of the Omitted Tasks. In previous District 4 emergency repair contracts the work of concrete excavation and replacement was separately bid and paid, as the Omitted Tasks had been. When preparing NEL s bid Mr. Galasso knew that excavating and replacing cement concrete under Special Provision would necessitate in every instance NEL to perform some or all of the Omitted Tasks. Mr. Galasso believed that, because six pay items apparently had been omitted from the bid sheet and because that work was not particularly described in 905.2, NEL would be successful in a claim for extra work. Before NEL bid Mr. Galasso telephoned three MassHighway employees he knew. The first was to the contracts office. Mr. Galasso told the employee that he believed that unit price pay items for work specified in previous bridge maintenance contracts was apparently omitted from the Contract. The conversation consisted of whether [pay items for the Omitted Tasks] were purposefully left out of the contract or I considered them a mistake, Galasso testified. According to Mr. Galasso the employee told him MassHighway would take Mr. Galasso s views under advisement. 4 Mr. Galasso then separately called two employees in District 4. Mr. Galasso told each that he considered the Omitted Tasks outside the Contract and thus extra work. According to Mr. Galasso neither employee told him whether the Omitted Tasks were included within Cement Concrete Masonry bid under Item Mr. Galasso did not make any contemporaneous record of his telephone calls. NEL did not write to MassHighway seeking clarification or explanation. NEL did not attempt to notify the Engineer of the apparent omissions in the specifications it thought existed. NEL 4 Mr. Galasso testified he was not absolutely sure of whom he spoke to in the contract section, though he named the person he normally spoke to when I have those problems. 4
6 did not submit a written question to MassHighway seeking clarification about the work included within Special Provision or why the anticipated pay items for the Omitted Tasks were unexpectedly absent. NEL submitted its bid on March 29, When NEL bid it believed that MassHighway would have to pay NEL extra for performing the Omitted Tasks. On March 29, 2005 MassHighway opened and read contractor proposals. NEL submitted the lowest bid and was awarded the Contract on May 12, The notice to proceed was issued on May 26, 2005; the pre-construction conference held on June 3, On or before June 16, 2005 NEL notified District 4 that there were missing bid items in the Contract. On July 19, 2005 NEL requested a meeting with District 4 to discuss extra work orders that have already become necessary. On July 28, 2005 NEL formally requested extra work orders for the Omitted tasks, which were denied by District 4 on August 10, On September 15, 2005, NEL submitted a written claim for extra work items as they become required. The District denied the claim and the matter was forwarded to the Committee, which denied the claim. On May 3, 2006 NEL appealed the Committee s denial here. On April 14, 2006, NEL notified the District that it claimed additional extra work of $14, for removal and reset of guard rail and temporary concrete barriers. NEL submitted that claim to this Office on that day. On August 25, 2006, this Office notified NEL that it had no jurisdiction over the claim because the Committee had not ruled. The Committee then heard NEL s claim for $14,583.67, denying it on December 26, NEL then appealed. 5
7 The Hearing All NEL s claims under the Contract were heard on September 29, 2008, as continued to October 3, Present were: Stephen H. Clark Administrative Law Judge Edmund Naras, Esq. Assistant Counsel, MassHighway Jane Estey, Esq. Assistant Counsel, MassHighway Prem Kapoor Structure Maintenance Eng. (9/29/08 only) Michael Deverix Construction Engineer, District 4 John S. Davagian, II, Esq. Attorney for NEL Albert Enos President, NEL Michael J. Galasso Vice president, NEL The following exhibits were admitted into evidence. Bench Exhibits ALJ #1 Contract #39741 ALJ #2 Statement of Claim, May 3, 2006 ALJ #3 District Response to Statement of Claim, May 18, 2006 ALJ #4 Statement of Claim, February 8, 2007 ALJ #5 District Response to Statement of Claim, February 26, 2007 ALJ #6A Memo to Tanya Barros from Judge Clark, August 15, 2007 ALJ #6B Memo to Tanya Barros from Judge Clark, August 15, 2007 ALJ #7 Standard Specification Section 748 (1995 Metric) ALJ #8 MHD Contract #41856 Exhibits of NEL Ex. #1 Contract #39741 Ex. #2 Section 100 of Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridges (1995 Metric) Ex. #3 Section 101 of the Metric Supplemental Specifications (12/11/02) Ex. #4 Section 901 of Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridges (1995 Metric) Ex. #5 Section 901 of Metric Supplemental Specifications dated December 11, 2002 Ex. #6 Bid List for Project No (Contract #39741) Ex. #7 Substructure List (06/03/05) Ex. #8 NEL Statement of Claim 5/3/06 Ex. #9 NEL Statement of Claim 2/8/07 Ex. #10 MHD contract #99192 Ex. #11 MHD contract #99193 Ex. #12 MHD contract #
8 Exhibits of MassHighway Ex. C-1 Section 700 of Supplemental Specifications (12/11/02) (1995 Metric) Ex. C-2 Section 900 of Supplemental Specifications (12/11/02) (1995 Metric) Ex. D-1 Construction Diary, Nat. Ass. of Women in Construction ( th ed.) Ex. E-1 Wikipedia Definitions for construction terms ( Falsework ) as of 9/17/08 Ex. E-2 Wikipedia Definitions for construction terms ( Shoring ) as of 9/17/08 NEL and MassHighway submitted post-hearing briefs. DISCUSSION NEL s duty to clarify errors and omissions in the specifications is expressly set forth in Subsection 5.04, which provides The Contractor shall take no advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans or specifications. In the event the Contractor discovers such an error or omission he shall immediately notify the Engineer. The Engineer will then make such corrections and interpretations as may be deemed necessary for fulfilling the intent of the contract. Generally, provisions such as Subsection 5.04 that obligate contractors before bidding to seek clarification of specifications are designed to enable potential contractors (as well as the Government) to clarify the contract s meaning before the die is cast. Beacon Constr. Co. v. United States, 314 F.2d 501, 504 (Ct. Cl. 1963) (Beacon). Specifically, the duty to seek clarification during the pre-bid phase is a means of preventive hygiene to (1) resolve issues of interpretation and prevent post award disputes; (2) advance the goal of informed bidding by putting bidders on an equal footing and encouraging competitive bids based on equal information; and (3) deter a bidder who knows (or should have known) of obvious errors or ambiguities from making a low bid and then crying change or extra when the government disagrees with his interpretation after award. S.O.G. of Ark. v. U.S., 546 F.2d 367, (Ct. Cl. 1976). 7
9 In Massachusetts it is settled law that [w]here a contractor is presented with an obvious omission, inconsistency or discrepancy, he should at least ask for clarification if he expects to rely on his pre-bid interpretation of a specification to support a later claim. John F. Miller Co., Inc. v. George Fichera Construction Corp., 7 Mass. App. Ct. 494, 499 (1979) (Miller), citing Beacon at Where a contractor fails to properly seek clarification, he can not rely on the principle that all errors, omissions and ambiguities in specifications written by the government will be held against the drafter. Id. 6 Where a mistake is obvious, so that a contractor reviewing specifications should have seen it, he must bring it to the government s attention before bid; but if the mistake is subtle, so that a contractor might be excused for not finding it, the contractor may recover. See Miller at Subsection 5.04 places an affirmative obligation on the contractor to address and resolve errors and omissions that might lead to claims; and it prohibits the contractor from taking advantage of obvious errors. In order to prevail on a claim based on its own interpretation of a provision that contains an obvious, apparent omission, the contractor must first discharge his duty to clarify that is, at least ask for clarification if he intends to bridge the crevasse [of a disputed interpretation] in his own favor. Miller at 499, citing Beacon at 504. Subsection 5.04 is the bridge over the crevasse which the contractor must cross. If he fails to do so he is barred from recovery. Beacon at 504. Here, there is no doubt that NEL knew before it bid that MassHighway had apparently omitted work that NEL knew would have to be done to perform the Contract for emergency 5 Whether the contractor actually knows an obvious omission exists is not necessary to establish, since it is the obviousness of discrepancy which imposes the duty of inquiry not the fact of actual knowledge. Chris Berg, Inc. v. U.S., 455 F.2d 1037 (Ct. Cl. 1972). 6 The bidder who is on notice of an incipient problem, but neglects to solve it as he is directed to do by this form of contractual preventive-hygiene, cannot rely on the principle that ambiguities in contracts written by the Government are held against the drafter. Beacon at
10 bridge repair. The Omitted Tasks were not called out by name in the specifications. The omissions were obvious, indeed glaring, which NEL perceived at the time. But instead of forthwith notifying the Engineer and seeking a clarification, as obliged by the Contract, NEL took no affirmative steps. NEL was content that all the apparently obvious omissions were left unresolved before bid. It did not properly seek any pre-bid clarification that would have resulted in the Engineer s pre-bid corrections and interpretations published to all prospective bidders. Instead, NEL bid on the Contract believing glaring omissions to exist. 7 NEL did not satisfy the notice requirement of Subsection NEL did not write the engineer seeking clarification; it did not submit a formal question pre-bid that would have elicited the Engineer s written response to all prospective bidders. Nor did NEL s phone calls suffice. Phone calls without concomitant written notice to persons charged with the responsibility of finally approving the Contract s specifications before bid did not immediately notify the Engineer. Rather, I think NEL s actions are consistent with a belief that the apparent omissions would require MassHighway to pay extra work post award. 8 7 NEL argues without citation that District 4 s departure from its practice asking unit price bids for the Omitted Tasks was so great that the changes should be explicitly stated in the bid documents. The very fact that the apparent omissions were so glaring are a compelling reason that NEL should have notified the Engineer. 8 There is no evidence on this record to show what other bidders knew before the bid. MassHighway s routine comparison of all bids shows that for Item 905.2, Cement Concrete Masonry, the office estimated a quantity of 423 cubic meters (CM) at $4,156/CM, for a total estimated price of $1,757,988. The estimate for Item was 78% of total office estimate for the entire contract ($2,254,815.00). The bid comparison sheet, which is part of the Contract, shows Item Item Item Total Bid Per Cent Quantity (CM) $/CM Bid Price All Items Bid Price/ Total Bid Office 423 4,156 1,757,988 2,254, NEL 423 3,854 1,630,242 2,052, SPS 423 4,905 2,074,815 2,131, Const. Dyn ,375 2,273,625 2,664, MIG 423 7,000 2,961,000 3,132,
11 I conclude that NEL s pre-bid actions were designed from the outset to take advantage of the obvious, apparent omissions it found. NEL s silence on the one hand and private contacts with public employees on the other worked to vitiate the salutary purpose of Subsection The net result was that MassHighway was unable to correct errors, avoid claims or assure that all bidders were privy to the same information. NEL did not bridge the crevasse in its own favor and so is barred from recovery. See Miller at 499; Beacon at 504. CONCLUSION Because NEL failed to notify the Engineer of the obvious omissions it found and because its failure precluded MassHighway from clarifying or correcting any error that may have existed in the specifications, NEL should not recover for the Claimed Extra Work. RECOMMENDATION NEL s appeal should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Stephen H. Clark Administrative Law Judge Dated: 10
Employment Omitted Tasks and Contract Negotiations
To: Secretary Jeffrey B. Mullan, MassDOT From: Stephen H. Clark, Administrative Law Judge Date: April 3, 2010 Re: Report and Recommendation I am pleased to submit for your consideration and approval the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana
More informationSupreme Court. No. 2011-350-Appeal. (PC 11-876) Multi-State Restoration, Inc., et al. : v. : DWS Properties, LLC. :
Supreme Court No. 2011-350-Appeal. (PC 11-876) Multi-State Restoration, Inc., et al. : v. : DWS Properties, LLC. : NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island
More information2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
More informationbefore the Tribunal. Commissioner Robert J. Firestone did not participate in this Decision.
New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal -----------------------------------------------------------------x : In the Matter of : : DECISION ASSOCIATED BUSINESS TELEPHONE : SYSTEMS CORPORATION : TAT (E) 93-1053(UT)
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-3272. In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-3272 In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor NOT PRECEDENTIAL ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. On Appeal from the United States District
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CHRISTINE BALDRIDGE, (Doing Business as Inventory Discount Printers), Petitioner, v. GOVERNMENT PRINTING
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT
BAP Appeal No. 05-36 Docket No. 29 Filed: 01/20/2006 Page: 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN RE RICHARD A. FORD and TONDA L. FORD, also known as Tonda Yung, Debtors.
More informationIN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2015 MTWCC 13. WCC No. 2015-3545 CAR WERKS, LLC. Petitioner. vs. UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND
IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2015 MTWCC 13 WCC No. 2015-3545 CAR WERKS, LLC Petitioner vs. UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND Respondent/Third Party Petitioner vs. JAMES E. GAWRONSKI
More informationDEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Appellate Division In the Case of: The Physicians Hospital in Anadarko, Petitioner, - v. - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. DATE:
More information5:05-cv-60112-JCO-SDP Doc # 37 Filed 06/09/06 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 457 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
5:05-cv-60112-JCO-SDP Doc # 37 Filed 06/09/06 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 457 PLANTE & MORAN CRESA, L.L.C., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case No. 05-60112
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS. Agency No.
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS In the matter of Ned S. Curtis, III, Petitioner v Public School Employees Retirement System, Respondent / Docket No. 2000-1025
More informationIN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
More informationBEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION WAYNE M. McKIBBEN Claimant VS. DRY BASEMENT & FOUNDATION SYSTEMS Respondent Docket No. 1,034,394 AND ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE CO.
More informationDISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: August 28, 2012 CBCA 2453, 2560 PRIMETECH, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: August 28, 2012 CBCA 2453, 2560 PRIMETECH, v. Appellant, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent. Chizoma Onyems, President of Primetech, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, appearing for
More information2:05-cv-70331-DML-VMM Doc # 504 Filed 03/18/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 12080 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:05-cv-70331-DML-VMM Doc # 504 Filed 03/18/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 12080 JEFFREY MICHAEL MOLDOWAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case Number 05-70331
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. Appellant No.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 NOT PRECEDENTIAL CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Appellant No. 06-2262 v. REGSCAN, INC. CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION
More informationNo. 2007-310-Appeal. (PC 06-3123) Present: Goldberg, Acting C.J., Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson, JJ., and Williams, C.J. (ret.).
Supreme Court No. 2007-310-Appeal. (PC 06-3123) Cathy Lee Barrette : v. : Vincent John Yakavonis, M.D. : Present: Goldberg, Acting C.J., Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson, JJ., and Williams, C.J. (ret.). O P
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:14-cv-00873-JLK Document 60 Filed 07/20/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-00873-JLK DEBORAH CARTER, v. Plaintiff,
More informationSECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. OSHRC Docket No. 95-1716 CONTINENTAL ROOF SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent.
SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. OSHRC Docket No. 95-1716 CONTINENTAL ROOF SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent. DECISION Before: WEISBERG, Chairman; GUTTMAN, Commissioner. BY THE COMMISSION: Continental Roof
More informationReports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationBest Practices on Construction Projects. January 29, 2008
Best Practices on Construction Projects Project Management Procedures Request for Information January 29, 2008 Presented by the Claims Avoidance & Resolution Committee 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES Request
More informationv. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02)
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 informationArizona Court Rules Arbitration Unconscionable
Arizona Court Rules Arbitration Unconscionable By Judge Bruce E. Meyerson (Ret.) 1 Although the United States Supreme Court in Green Tree Fin. Corp. Alabama v. Randolph, 2 held, in the context of a contract
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL BOARD DECISION APPEARANCES
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: If Applicant was in any way confused or unclear as to the Judge s proposals for leaving the record open, he was duty bound to bring up the issue at the time of hearing, or
More informationCase 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 13-cv-00796-RPM MICHAEL DAY KEENEY, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior
More informationFOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 26th day of February, 2008, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2007-CC-1091 FREY PLUMBING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ENTRY ON DEFENDANT S MOTION TO CAP DAMAGES
FULMORE v. M & M TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. Doc. 112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION CARL S. FULMORE, Plaintiff, v. M & M TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. David D. Cooper CEO
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- ) ) United Healthcare Partners, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 58123 ) Under Contract No. FA4877-12-C-0002 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. David D. Cooper CEO
More informationDepartment of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Kearney Regional Medical Center, LLC (CCN: 28-0134), 1 Petitioner, v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
More informationEnvironmental Quality Management, Inc.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Decision Comptroller General of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
More informationDate. Resubmit this form during the year if there are changes in your company ownership or financial standing.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PREQUALIFICATION STATEMENT (EXPERIENCE, EQUIPMENT AND FINANCIAL) Return to: Contracts & Market Analysis Prequalification Unit 4201 E. Arkansas,4th Floor
More informationCase 1:06-cv-01892-CKK Document 30 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-01892-CKK Document 30 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 06 1892 (CKK) REVONET,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
More information1 OF 7. there will be few "surprises" as the work progresses.
1 OF 7 FP-G1.94 GUIDELINES FOR SUCCESSFUL SUPERVISION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS There is no doubt that the successful completion of any capital construction project is the result
More information: BANKRUPTCY NO. 09-12649-MDC. Before this Court for consideration is the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee s (the Trustee ) objection
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: : CHAPTER 13 ROBERT EDWARD GRAVES AND MARY LOU GRAVES, DEBTORS. : : BANKRUPTCY NO. 09-12649-MDC MEMORANDUM BY: MAGDELINE
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Matter of SPARCcom & Assocs., SBA No. BDPT-501 (2013) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals IN THE MATTER OF: SPARCcom & Assocs., Petitioner SBA No. BDPT-501
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A09-591. David S. Kasid, Appellant, vs. Country Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Jane Doe, Defendant.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A09-591 David S. Kasid, Appellant, vs. Country Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Jane Doe, Defendant. Filed December 22, 2009 Affirmed Worke, Judge Ramsey County
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-1014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1014 GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff - Appellee, HINKLE CONTRACTING CORPORATION, now known as Hinkle Contracting
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Reichert, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 42 C.D. 2013 : Argued: October 10, 2013 Workers' Compensation Appeal : Board (Dollar Tree Stores/Dollar : Express and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : CASE NO 3:11CV00997(AWT) RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT --------------------------------x STATE OF CONNECTICUT : COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, : : Plaintiff, v. : : CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE : COMPANIES, : : Defendant.
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13-1186 For the Seventh Circuit IN RE: JAMES G. HERMAN, Debtor-Appellee. APPEAL OF: JOHN P. MILLER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
More informationCounsel must be fully familiar with the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court 22 NYCRR Part 202.
JUSTICE GERALD E. LOEHR, J.S.C. Rockland County Supreme Court 1 South Main Street New City, New York 10956 Courtroom 1 Tel: (845) 483-8343 Fax: (845) 708-7236 Staff Bruce J. Pearl, Principal Law Secretary
More informationDisputes and Claims. 3 Processes Dispute Resolution and Administrative Claims Process
Disputes and Claims 3 Processes Dispute Resolution and Administrative Claims Process Default Process C&MS 108.02 Partnering OR PN 108 -Dispute Review Board (DRB) Considered for use on projects over $20
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION THE PRIVATEER SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 36072 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 36072 RUTH A. CREPS, Claimant-Appellant, v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. Boise, June 2010 Term 2010 Opinion No. 72 Filed: June 28, 2010 Stephen
More informationGUIDELINES FOR ATTORNEYS TAXATION OF COURT COSTS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
GUIDELINES FOR ATTORNEYS TAXATION OF COURT COSTS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO The purpose of these guidelines is to explain the standard and customary practices of the Clerk s Office of the United
More informationAppealing A Rock Excavation Request By The Government
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) American Renovation & Construction Co. and) St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. ) ASBCA Nos. 53946, 54526 ) Under Contract No. DACA67-00-C-0220
More informationCASE 0:11-cv-00841-ADM-AJB Document 84 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:11-cv-00841-ADM-AJB Document 84 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Midas Life Settlements, LLC, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION v. AND ORDER Civil No. 11-841
More informationCASE NO. 1D12-2739. John W. Wesley of Wesley, McGrail & Wesley, Ft. Walton Beach, for Appellants.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JARVIS A. HOLMES and MARSHA HOLMES, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF
More information2013 WI APP 10 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION
2013 WI APP 10 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2012AP392 Petition for Review Filed Complete Title of Case: STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. HAGUE
More informationTHE BUSINESS EDGE GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. CHAMPION MORTGAGE COM- PANY, INC., No. 07-1059 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Page 1 THE BUSINESS EDGE GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. CHAMPION MORTGAGE COM- PANY, INC., No. 07-1059 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 519 F.3d 150; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5158 January 3,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationThe N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense
The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err
More informationWILDCAT CANYON ROAD SPECIFICATION NO. 16-11001 SLIDE REPAIR BIDDER'S PROPOSAL (continued)
BIDDER'S PROPOSAL (continued) Item Estimated No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost BASE BID 1 Traffic Control 1 LS $ $ 2 Construction Area Signs 1 LS $ $ 3 Excavation Safety 1 LS $ $ 4 Reset
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION IV JASON POPE, ) No. ED98108 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Labor and ) Industrial Relations Commission vs. ) ) GATEWAY TO THE WEST ) HARLEY
More informationIN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) SIMMONS V. PRECAST HAULERS NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 1
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and orders of this court the document set forth below. This document was signed electronically on January 28, 2009, which
More informationStorage Computer v. Worldwide CV-02-100-JM 07/17/02 P UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Storage Computer v. Worldwide CV-02-100-JM 07/17/02 P UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Storage Computer Corporation v. Civil No. 02-100-JM Opinion No. 2002 DNH 134 Worldwide
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Main Document Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE: ) ) Citation Corporation, et al., ) Case No. 04-08130-TOM-11 ) Chapter 11 Debtors. ) Jointly
More informationREQUEST FOR QUOTATION
Requirement The City of Ottawa, hereinafter referred to as the City, is requesting the submission of quotations for the completion of masonry restoration at the Nepean Creative Arts Centre located at 35
More informationST. MARY S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER BATH IRON WORKS. treatment costs pursuant to the Maine Workers Compensation Act, 39-A M.R.S.
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2009 ME 92 Docket: WCB-08-663 Argued: May 20, 2009 Decided: August 18, 2009 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AARON THERIAULT, assignee of TERRI S LOUNGE, INC., d/b/a TERRI S LOUNGE, UNPUBLISHED October 14, 2008 Plaintiff-Appellee, and MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH,
More informationTHE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
2014 UT App 187 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS LARRY MYLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BLACKSTONE FINANCIAL GROUP BUSINESS TRUST, Defendant and Appellee. Opinion No. 20130246-CA Filed August 7, 2014 Third
More informationWORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD Case No. App. Div. 13-0040 Decision No. 14-29. BRUCE OLESON (Appellant) v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER (Appellee)
STATE OF MAINE APPELLATE DIVISION WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD Case No. App. Div. 13-0040 Decision No. 14-29 BRUCE OLESON (Appellant) v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER (Appellee) and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
More informationSupreme Court No. 2014-293-Appeal. (PB 12-5438) Bank of America, N.A. : v. : P.T.A. Realty, LLC, et al. :
Supreme Court No. 2014-293-Appeal. (PB 12-5438) Bank of America, N.A. : v. : P.T.A. Realty, LLC, et al. : NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter.
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
WHOLE COURT NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/ March
More informationThis is a lawsuit over an unpaid half-million dollar life insurance policy. The parties have
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN PAUL BROEGE, and THE ESTATE OF STEVEN J. BROEGE, BY PHYLLIS A. BROEGE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, Wisconsin Residents, Plaintiffs,
More informationDefendant. Pending before the Court is a motion (Dkt. No. 167) by defendant
Case 1:08-cv-00623-RJA-JJM Document 170 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT a/s/o Sherry Demrick, v. Plaintiff,
More informationAny civil action exempt from arbitration by action of a presiding judge under ORS 36.405.
CHAPTER 13 Arbitration 13.010 APPLICATION OF CHAPTER (1) This UTCR chapter applies to arbitration under ORS 36.400 to 36.425 and Acts amendatory thereof but, except as therein provided, does not apply
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-30140 Document: 00513331310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant United States
More informationIN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED July 14, 2015. Appeal No. 2014AP1151 DISTRICT I MICHAEL L. ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 14, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION In re: JOSEPH R. O LONE, Case No.: 3:00-bk-5003-JAF Debtor. Chapter 7 / FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This case
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued January 8, 2008 Decided July 23,
More informationCase 1:09-cv-00554-JAW Document 165 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 2495 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Case 1:09-cv-00554-JAW Document 165 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 2495 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MICHAEL HINTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:09-cv-00554-JAW ) OUTBOARD MARINE
More informationCase 8:10-cv-02549-EAJ Document 20 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID 297 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:10-cv-02549-EAJ Document 20 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID 297 TORREY CRAIG, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION vs. Case No.: 8:10-CV-2549-T-EAJ
More informationIn re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, v. GREG ROLAND SMITH, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014 Appeal from
More informationCase 2:11-cv-02714-JAR Document 247 Filed 03/28/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:11-cv-02714-JAR Document 247 Filed 03/28/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) BOARDWALK APARTMENTS, L.C., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 11-2714-JAR-KMH
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAD OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAD OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION 1804-14 GREEN STREET ASSOCIATES, : June Term 2006 L.P., : Plaintiff, : No. 1763 v. : ERIE
More informationDepartment of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Eileen M. Rice, M.D., Petitioner, v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Docket No. C-12-162 Decision
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ALEC DEMOPOLIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 16, 2015 v No. 320099 Macomb Circuit Court MAURICE R. JONES, LC No. 2012-000488-NO Defendant, and ALEXANDER V. LYZOHUB,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-KA-02082-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-KA-02082-COA MICHAEL MARTIN APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/20/2010 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JANNIE M. LEWIS COURT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-13381 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00281-RBD-JBT-1.
Case: 12-13381 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13381 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00281-RBD-JBT-1
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-10122 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cv-00667-RDP. versus.
Case: 10-10122 Date Filed: 06/30/2010 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10122 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cv-00667-RDP PRINCIPAL
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTHEW PRICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; IBM LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendants-Appellees.
More informationHow To Get Benefits From The Second Injury Fund
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: RANDAL M. KLEZMER Klezmer Maudlin, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana FRANCES BARROW Deputy Attorney
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. (FILED: November 19, 2014)
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT (FILED: November 19, 2014) BENJAMIN R. STRAUSS, in his : capacity as Executor of the Estate of : Charles M. Strauss : : vs.
More informationcorporate Sponsorship Agreements - Without Evidence Is Not a Case Study
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
More informationBEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF HOWARD L. BANCROFT, III No. 01-29 ASSESSMENT NOS. 612890, 612891, 612892 DECISION
More informationEMPLOYEES GUIDE TO APPEALING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM DENIAL
EMPLOYEES GUIDE TO APPEALING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM DENIAL Appeals of workers compensation claim denials are handled by the Labor Commission s Adjudication Division. If you disagree with the claim
More informationPLAINTIFF S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM
DOCKET NO. PJR CV-02-0817228 SUPERIOR COURT DAVID A. WILSON JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD V. AT HARTFORD THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE TRAVELERS LIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY NOVEMBER 20,2002 PLAINTIFF
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0//0 Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 Tim Galli, v. Plaintiff, Pittsburg Unified School District, et al., Defendants. / No. C 0- JSW
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13 2114 For the Seventh Circuit BLYTHE HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, et al., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. JOHN A. DEANGELIS, et al., Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-618 Mark Lanterman, Appellant, vs. Sela Roofing
More informationTAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY. May 1, 2012
TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY 153 Halsey Street CHRISTINE M. NUGENT Gibraltar Building - 8 TH Floor JUDGE Newark, New Jersey 07101 (973) 648 2098 Fax: (973) 648-2149 Henry LaCap, Esq. Crossroads Corporate Center
More informationSTATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Patricia L. Acampora, Chairwoman Maureen F. Harris Robert E. Curry, Jr. Cheryl A. Buley STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission
More information