Cases

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE HUGHES *133In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593,

William Bailey, Sr. v. Jamia Happer, No. 0685, September Term, 2024. Opinion by Getty, Joseph M., J. HEADNOTES: SAFE ACT – RETROACTIVE APPLICATION The SAFE Act may not be applied retroactively. However, a statute does not operate retroactively merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute’s enactment. Therefore, a court is permitted to consider an alleged exploiter’s entire course of conduct, including conduct which occurred before the effective date of th

142 F.3d 601 Mark WALDORF, Appellant in No. 97-5195,v.Edward J. SHUTA; Carolyn Wood; Kenneth C. Spence, Jr.;Mary Kay Spence; Borough of Kenilworth; Joseph Rego;Henry J. Moll; Victor Smith; Lawrence Stickle; CharlesDavid; Joseph Ventre; Thomas Neville; William J. Ahern;William E. Conrad; Livio Mancino; Gary Rowinsky; MarioDibella; Vincent Scorese; Harry Grapenthin; Mary Kelly;Richard McCormack; Willia

07/01/2025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 23, 2025 MATTHEW EDWIN RUSHTON v. WHITNEY BROOKE RUSHTON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lawrence County No. 3642-23 M. Caleb Bayless, Judge ___________________________________

Najam, Judge. Statement of the Case This appeal arises from a discovery dispute between L.G. (“Father”)1 and S.L. and W.L. (“Adoptive Parents”) that resulted in the dismissal of Father’s motion to contest the adoption of his putative child, Infant Male R. (“Child”), and the trial court’s entry of a decree of adoption. The ■overarching issue is whether Father caused undue delay

Case: 21-60688 Document: 00516436515 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 17, 2022

FILED Jul 11 2019, 8:41 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

Kirsch, Judge. [1] J.R. ("Father") appeals the juvenile court's order adjudicating two of his children, A.R. and H.R., to be children in need of services ("CHINS"). Father raises three issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as follows: I. Whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction to enter a CHINS adjudication and disposition;

Belfance, Judge. {¶ 1} D.M. appeals the ruling of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, that reallocated parental rights and responsibilities from appellant to appellee. We affirm. I {¶ 2} Appellant, D.M. (“Mother”), and appellee, J.M. (“Father”), were granted a divorce in May 2004. Mother was named the residential parent of the couple’s three minor chil

BAKER, Judge. [1] A.C. (Mother) appeals the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to her children N.G., L.C., and M.C. We reverse the trial court’s judgment insofar as it relates to L.C. and M.C. as we find insufficient evidence to support it. However, we find that the trial court’s judgment as to N.G. is supported by sufficient evidence and we affirm that portion of the judgment.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION FRANK J. BAILEY, Bankruptcy Judge. By their complaints in the above-captioned adversary proceedings, creditor Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in Special Liquidation) (“IBRC”) and chapter 7 trustee Kathleen P. Dwyer (the “Trustee”) (collectively “the Plaintiffs”) object to the discharge of debtor David K. Drumm (“Drumm” or “the Debtor”) on numerous bases. For the m

OPINION CHRISTEN, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION Stephanie F. and George C. both sought physical and legal custody of their son and daughter.1 Following lengthy proceedings, the superior court found that it would be in the children's best interests for custody to be awarded to George. This conclusion was supported in part by findings that the parties' daughter had spec

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1269 ___________________________ Independent School District No. 283 Plaintiff - Appellant v. E.M.D.H., a minor, by and through her parents and next friends, L.H. and S.D.

OPINION OF THE COURT Philip G. Minardo, J. On November 19, 1863, in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, President Abraham Lincoln declared: “But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long r

[Cite as In re A.V., 2022-Ohio-4719.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY IN RE: : A.V., et al. : CASE NOS. CA2022-06-046 CA2022-06-047 :

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 23-2589 CHRISTOPHER C. HAMBIDGE, PETITIONER, V. DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT. Before TOTH, FALVEY, and JAQUITH, Judges. ORDER TOTH, Judge, filed t

ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on the Motion to Dismiss [DE-45] filed by Defendants Lee W. Bettis, Jr., Pat Leigh Pittman, Joanne K. Partin, Robert L. Emanuel, Stephen A. Dunn, Raymond E. Dunn, Jr., Emanuel & Dunn, PLLC, and Bettis Dunn & Dunn (collectively, the “E & D Defendants” or “Defendants E & D”); the Motion to Dismi

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE EASYSAVER REWARDS No. 16-56307 LITIGATION, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02094- JOSUE ROMERO; DEANNA HUNT; BAS-WVG KIMBERLY KENYON; GINA BAILEY; ALISSA HERBST; GRANT JENKINS; BRADLEY BERENTSON; JENNIFER OPINION LAWLER; DANIEL COX; JONATHAN WALTER; CHRISTOPHER DICKEY,

01/26/2021 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 4, 2020 Session CHARLES HAMPTON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 10-04814 Lee V. Coffee, Judge ___________________________________

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN BEJARANO, No. 11-99000 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:98-cv-01016- v. PMP-RJJ WILLIAM REUBART, Warden, OPINION Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distr