196 Va. 493 (1954) W. O. LUCY AND J. C. LUCY v. A. H. ZEHMER AND IDA S. ZEHMER. Record No. 4272. Supreme Court of Virginia. November 22, 1954. A. S. Harrison, Jr. and Emerson D. Baugh, for the appellants. Morton G. Goode and William Earle White, for the appellees. Present, Eggleston, Buchanan, Miller, Smith and Whittle, JJ. 1. In suit by Lucy against Zehmer and his wife for specific performance of a contract requiring the latter to convey a farm to Lucy for a stated price, the evidence contradic . . .
5 N.J. 53 (1950) 73 A.2d 911 KATHERINE ZEHRER, PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT, v. CLIFFORD ZEHRER, DEFENDANT APPELLANT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued May 15, 1950. Decided June 19, 1950. *56 Mr. Dougal Herr argued the cause for the appellant ( Mr. Albert W. Seaman, attorney). Mr. John C. Stockel argued the cause for the respondent. The opinion of the court was delivered by ACKERSON, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court (one judge dissenting) affirm . . .
742 P.2d 1203 (1987) Floyd WEBSTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mary LEHMER and Charles Lehmer, Defendants and Appellants. No. 19339. Supreme Court of Utah. April 8, 1987. Rehearing Denied September 28, 1987. Robert S. Campbell, E. Barney Gesas, Salt Lake City, for appellants. James J. Smedley, Heber City, for respondent. STEWART, Associate Chief Justice: Defendant Mary Lehmer appeals the judgment of the district court rescinding a real estate contract executed by Lehmer and her husband as purc . . .
162 S.W.3d 770 (2005) Paul LUCY, Appellant, v. Joan Waugh LUCY, Appellee. No. 08 02 00523 CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. April 12, 2005. *771 John P. Mobbs, El Paso, for Appellant. Karen L. Landinger, Ray, Valdez, McChristian & Jeans, P.C., El Paso, for Appellee. *772 Before Panel BARAJAS, C.J., McCLURE, and CHEW, JJ. OPINION ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice. This is an appeal from a division of property incident to divorce. At issue is an amorphous award of "reimbursement" in favor of . . .
It appears that the estate was solvent, and was not settled in the insolvent course. The administrator took possession of the real estate, made repairs, paid taxes assessed after the testator's decease, and charged in his administration account for the services rendered by him, and the money paid out in thus taking care of the property. He also credited the estate with the amount of rents and profits received. The judge of probate disallowed these charges, and did not charge the administrator fo . . .
591 F.3d 666 (2010) Emmanuel N. LAZARIDIS, individually and in his capacity as legal custodian of V.L., a minor, v. Lavina Tina WEHMER; Matthew Neiderman; Catherine Suter; Afroditi Mina Mauroeidi; Office of the Attorney General of the State of Delaware; Attorney General Joseph Biden, III. Emmanuel N. Lazaridis, Appellant. No. 09 1342. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1 on December 3, 2009. Filed: January 7, 2010. *667 Emmanuel N. Lazaridis . . .
44 B.R. 992 (1984) Joe T. DEHMER, JR., Plaintiff, v. Murry Owen TEMPLE, Debtor, Joyce S. Temple and Frank Youngblood, In His Capacity As Trustee, Defendants. Civ. A. No. J84 0062(B), Bankruptcy No. 84201456JC, Adv. No. 820815JC. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division. November 30, 1984. *993 Craig M. Geno, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff. Thomas W. Sanford, Robert G. Nichols, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for defendants. ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION BARBOUR, District Judge. I. JUR . . .
698 N.W.2d 338 (2005) STATE v. BEHMER No. 04 0938 Court of Appeals of Iowa April 28, 2005. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
This is the second review of this case by this court. The earlier decision appears in 124 Ohio St. 634 , 180 N.E. 267 . However, the numerous questions now raised are wholly different from the one presented at that time. It is the view of this court that among the present questions there is but one requiring consideration. This relates to the second defense in the answer to the fourth amended petition. The substance of that allegation is that the plaintiff's claimed right of action accrued more . . .
Pursuant to § 647c of the General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1935, the defendant, as mayor of the city of Putnam, held a hearing on the plaintiff's application for a certificate of approval of his property for the sale of gasoline and allied products. After the hearing, the defendant denied the application in a lengthy memorandum which contained a summary of all the evidence produced at the hearing and his conclusions. The defendant has made this memorandum a part of his answer and the plaintiff asks t . . .