appellant appellee

• Appellant v. Appellee, (7th Cir. 2012)

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 11-3799 IN RE: S PECIAL F EBR...

• Federal Circuits

• Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, (5th Cir. 2011)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals ...

• Federal Circuits

• Innovative Technologies Corp. v. Advanced Mgt. Technology, Inc., (Ohio 2011)

Trial court did not err when it overruled appellant/cross-appellee’s motion for summary judgment, motion for directed verdict, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and motion for new trial. Sufficient evidence was adduced in the record which established that appellee/cross-appellant would have won a government contract in August of 2001 but for the tortious conduct of appellant/cross-appellee. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted appellant’s motion for remittitur regarding compensatory and punitive damages awarded by the jury. Ratio of 2.96:1 for punitive and compensatory damages was appropriate and not unconstitutionally excessive. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to appellee’s counsel. Nature, duration, and compl...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, (5th Cir. 2012)

REVISED February 15, 2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ...

• Federal Circuits

• Harrel Franklin Braddy, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee, (2012)

Supreme Court of Florida _____________ No. SC07-2174 _____________ HARREL FRANKLIN BRADDY, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FL...

• Florida Supreme Court

• United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee., 299 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2002)

Shirley L. Baccus-Lobel (argued), Law Offices of Shirley Baccus-Lobel, William M. Ravkind (argued), Ravkind & Ravkind, Dallas, TX, for Lipscomb. Appe...

• Federal Circuits

• Wells Fargo Fin. Ohio 1 Mtge. Group v. Lieb, (Ohio 2011)

The mortgage between Appellant and Appellee is enforceable even if the mortgage were defectively executed under R.C. 5301.01. Appellant intended to grant Appellee a mortgage and did not plead fraud. Judgment affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• David James Martin, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee, (2012)

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC10-539 ____________ DAVID JAMES MARTIN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, ...

• Florida Supreme Court

• Cronkelton v. Guaranteed Constr. Servs., (Ohio 2013)

Trial court did not err by admitting extrinsic evidence under the fraudulent inducement exception to the parol evidence rule. Competent, credible evidence supported the jury’s finding that the appellee justifiably relied on the appellant’s misrepresentations where the appellee had inspected the property, verified with the appellant that appellant would winterize the property, and appellant was a receiver appointed by the court. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding punitive damages and attorney fees to appellee when appellant’s conduct was particularly egregious.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Wadada Delhall, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee, (2012)

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC09-87 ____________ WADADA DELHALL, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appe...

• Florida Supreme Court