Cases

*670In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Kathleen Smith and Steven Leventhal separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (McCarty III, J.), dated August 7, 2008, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew and reargue her opposition to their separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted agains

331 S.W.3d 360 (2011) Richard and Barbara BARNETT, et al., Respondents, v. Steve and Cindy DUNCAN, Appellants. No. ED 94781. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five. February 15, 2011. Frederick H. Schwetye, Union, MO, for appellant. Justin E. Head, Union, MO, for respondent. Before: GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 2, 2000 Session CYNTHIA MITCHELL BARNETT v. BARBARA NAN BEHRINGER, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 98-1261-III Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor No. M1999-01421-COA-R3-CV - Filed May 27, 2003 This appeal involves a dispute betw

818 F.Supp.2d 159 (2011) Judith BARNETT, Plaintiff v. PA CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 04-1245 (BJR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. October 14, 2011. *161 Douglas B. Huron, Richard A. Salzman, Heller, Huron, Chertkof, Lerner, Simon & Salzman, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. El

624 S.E.2d 52 (2006) 271 Va. 65 James Bernard BARNETT v. Stephen L. KITE. Record No. 051091. Supreme Court of Virginia. January 13, 2006. *53 William D. Bayliss (W.F. Drewry Gallalee; William Mullen, on briefs), Richmond, for appellant. David Hart Nelson (Emmet D. Alexander; Gates & Alexander, o

293 F.Supp.2d 1220 (2003) Barbara BARNETT, Plaintiff, v. LIFE INSURANCE INVESTORS COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. No. 02-1464-WEB. United States District Court, D. Kansas. October 21, 2003. *1221 Burck Bailey, Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens-Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, OK, Todd A. Nelson, Fellers Snider Blankensh

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 9 10 JUDITH BARNETT 11 Plaintiff Civil Action No. 04-1245 (BJR) 12 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 PA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 14

101 P.3d 646 (2004) 209 Ariz. 352 The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Daniel James Alexander BARNETT, Appellee. No. 2 CA-CR 2003-0386. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, Department A. November 30, 2004. *647 Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney, By Amy Pignatella Cain, Tucson, for Appellant.

JORDAN, Circuit Judge: We hold, for the reasons which follow, that a party’s post-trial claim that a jury *1257 verdict is inconsistent does not preserve for appeal the separate and legally distinct claim that the verdict was the result of an unlawful jury compromise. We therefore affirm the zero

These appeals are from a final order of the Mobile Circuit Court in a declaratory-judgment action in which the plaintiffs were seeking an interpretation and declaration of the legal effect of certain language contained in a will. We have consolidated the appeals for the purpose of writing one opinion. I. Facts and Procedural History The facts are undisputed. Barbara C. Anderson ("the testatrix") died in 1970. Her will, executed on April 5, 1965, was a

ORDER PER CURIAM. Anthony Barnett (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after Movant pleaded guilty to forgery, section 570.090.1, RSMo 1994, and driving while intoxicated, sections 577.010 and 577.023, RSMo 1994. On appeal, Movant claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him that he would receive intensive supervised probation.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Livingston Wingate, J.), rendered on December 2, 1985, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See, Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferma

ORDER PER CURIAM. Defendant, Steve Barnett, appeals from a conviction for the class A felony of first degree robbery, Section 569.020 RSMo 1994. Defendant was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts

ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge: This case arises out of an internal investigation by the United States Postal Service of an altercation between two postal workers. Plaintiff-Appellants sought damages for constitutional violations against individual federal employees pur *274 suant to Bive

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 19, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D22-1247 Lower Tribunal No. 17-2158 ________________ Richard Namon, Jr., Appellant,

934 F.Supp. 1340 (1995) William H. GROSS, etc., Plaintiffs, v. BARNETT BANKS, INC., etc., et al., Defendants. No. 93-1367-Civ-J-20. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. November 22, 1995. *1341 *1342 Gerald Frederick Richman, Robert C. Levine, Floyd, Pearson, Rich

People v Barnett (2018 NY Slip Op 05186) People v Barnett 2018 NY Slip Op 05186 Decided on July 11, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law §

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 3, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D23-0094 Lower Tribunal No. 20-5425 ________________ Barbara M. Morales, Appellant,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2019-KA-01365-SCT TONY RANDELL BARNETT, JR. a/k/a TONY BARNETT a/k/a BARNETT TONY RANDELL, JR. v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/23/2019 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JON MARK WEATHERS TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: BRYAN P. BUCKLEY MATTHEW DAVIS SHOEMAKER ANDRE