cross-motion for summary judgment

• Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, (Ohio 2011)

Trial court did not err in granting mortgagee’s motion for summary judgment and denying homeowners’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Although plaintiff did not establish that it was the holder of the note, plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note and mortgage as a nonholder in possession with the right to enforce the note. Plaintiff had standing to prosecute an action when it was assigned the mortgage prior to judgment. Defendants did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff acted with unclean hands. Judgment affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Reflecting On 15 Years of a Public Crucifixion

Rev. Nat Turner, Min. Malcolm X and Dr. King are some of our finest examples. They warred against principalities and left political endorsements to the press and to politicians. "They were too busy swinging to be doing any endorsing." Endorsements yield personal benefits. Afterwards, the landlord initiated an eviction proceeding in 2000. After a bench trial, the judge ruled in our favor. This only incensed the landlord. The landlord commenced a second eviction proceeding. On our cross-motion for summary judgment, the judge dismissed the second petition. An all-out support rally will occur at the Elks Plaza, 1065 Fulton Street (bet. Clarkson & Franklin) in Brooklyn on Wednesday, May 4, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Take the "A" train to Franklin Avenue. For further information, call 718-834-9034.

• New York Amsterdam News
• August 04, 2009

• Bank of Am., N.A. v. Omega Design/Build Group, L.L.C., (Ohio 2011)

APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL – REAL PROPERTY – PROCEDURE/RULES: In a foreclosure action involving a multistory condominium complex, a trial court’s order granting partial summary judgment to mechanic’s-lien claimants, and denying a bank’s cross-motion for summary judgment, on the sole legal issue of the priority of the mechanic’s liens over the bank’s mortgage is a final appealable order under the syllabus paragraphs of Queen City Savings & Loan Co. v. Foley (1960), 170 Ohio St. 383, 165 N.E.2d 633. [But, see, DISSENT: Queen City does not apply to make the entry of partial summary judgment for the lien claimants a final appealable order; the issue of priority was not decided by the trial court in the absence of a determination of the validity of the mechanic’s liens themselves, and until ...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Randy L. Parcel, Denver, Colo., Atty. of Record, for Plaintiff. Joseph E. Meyer, Iii, Denver, Colo., Earl M. Hill, Reno, Nev., and Parcel, Talesnick, Meyer & Schwartz, Denver, Colo., of Counsel. Dorothy R. Burakreis, Washington, D.C., With Whom was Acting Asst. Atty. Gen. Anthony C. Liotta, Washington, D.C., for Defendant. Kenneth G. Lee, Washington, D.C., of Counsel. Petition for Review From the Department of the Interior Board of Land Appeals. Before Skelton, Senior Judge, and Kashiwa and Bennett, Judges. on Defendant'S Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff'S Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment this is a Suit for Refund of Royalties Paid By Plaintiff To the United States for Lithium Which Plaintiff Mines on Federal Lands Near Silver Peak, Nevada. Defendant Counter-Claims for Additional Royalties. Plaintiff Seeks Review of a Decision By the Department of the Interior Board of Land Appeals (Ibla or the Board) Adverse To Plaintiff on Its Claim and Upholding Defendant'S Counterclaim. Foote Mineral Co., 34..., 728 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir. 1984)

• Federal Circuits

• Estate of Edward P. Roski, Sr., Deceased, Edward P. Roski, Jr., Executor, Petitioner V. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent

In the Estate of Roski v. Commr. case, the estate elected to pay its tax in installments under Section 6166(a)(l). The IRS informed the estate that it would have to secure a bond equal to twice the amount of tax deferred or provide a special lien under Section 6324A (special lien), in order to qualify for the election. The IRS requirement was based on a recent decision by the IRS to make a bond or a special lien a prerequisite of the election in all cases. The estate sent the IRS a detailed letter enumerating reasons why it was impracticable for the estate to secure a bond or a special lien and requested that IRS exercise his discretion and find that it was not necessary because of the minimal financial risk the estate's circumstances posed. The IRS sent the estate a notice of determina...

...R moved for summary judgment on the grounds that this Court does not h... objected to R's motion and filed a crossmotion for summary judgment, asking this Court to find th...

• United States. Tax Court. Reports
• Vol. 128 Nbr. 3/4, March 2007

• Coverage for Motor Cargo 'in Transit' May Apply While Trailer Is Parked

A cargo company in Tennessee arranged to have an independent trucking company transport freight for it. The trucking company bought a motor truck cargo liability insurance policy, which insured property while in "due course of transit." While transporting a shipment of tires for the cargo company, a driver for the trucking company parked the trailer portion of the tractor-trailer behind a shopping center and left it overnight. When the driver returned the next day, the trailer and tire shipment were gone; apparently the goods were stolen overnight. The cargo company paid the owner of the stolen tires $35,700, then sued the trucking company and its insurer for breach of contract. Following discovery the cargo company filed a motion for summary judgment, and the insurer responded with a c...

..., and the insurer responded with a crossmotion for summary judgment. The trial court said that "i...

• American Agent & Broker
• Vol. 79 Nbr. 5, May 2007

• Wolanin v. Holmes, (Ohio 2007)

Tram; motor vehicle; summary judgment; R.C. 2744.02(B); zoo; immunity; political subdivision tort liability; cross-motion for summary judgment

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Tipp City v. Dakin, (Ohio 2010)

The trial court erred in granting the appellee a permanent injunction and enjoining the appellants from displaying a wall mural in violation of a sign ordinance. The appellants had overbreadth standing to assert a facial challenge to the sign ordinance’s definition section, permit requirement, color limits, and size restrictions. As written, the latter three provisions are unconstitutionally content based and cannot be saved through severance. Therefore, they are unenforceable against the appellants’ mural. The trial court erred in not sustaining the appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment and entering judgment in their favor for declaratory and injunctive relief and for reasonable attorney fees. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for entry of final judgment...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• 'Serious Injury' Not Confirmed, Claim Dismissed

The New York State Court of Claims granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in Donald Snead v. State of New York, determining the claimant failed to present objective evidence to support his claim. Dismissing the case against the state, Judge Renee Forgensi Minarik simultaneously denied claimant's cross-motion for summary judgment, finding nothing in the reports from two doctors that would support claimant's assertion of serious injury caused by a state employee's driving mishap.

• Daily Record (Rochester, NY)
• May 26, 2004

• Beasley v. Monoko, Inc., (Ohio 2011)

Trial court properly granted appellees' motion for summary judgment and denied appellant's cross-motion on breach of contract claim. Appellant cannot recover against contractor. Read as a whole, the contract required appellant to reject defective work prior to issuance of final acceptance and released contractor of obligations upon final acceptance. Contract failed to provide a right to pursue a remedy for performance-related defects discovered after issuance of final acceptance and no applicable painting warranty existed. Waiver and estoppel were not applied to waive right to enforce contract, as no such rights existed. Surety not liable under performance bond because principal was released from liability and the statute governing said bonds used language indicating bond was no long...

• Ohio Supreme Court