Cases

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner, a prison inmate, was assigned to the facility’s kitchen and responsible for preparing a meal for inmates in keeplock on the day of the inc

943 A.2d 1007 (2008) Demetrius BAILEY, Appellant v. Ann MILLER, Lt. Baird, R. Reed, C. Mitchell. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs January 18, 2008. Decided March 6, 2008. *1008 Demetrius Bailey, appellant, pro se. Jaime B. Boyd, Asst. Counsel and Suzanne N. Hueston, Chief Counsel, Camp Hill, for appe

MEMORANDUM * The district court granted Petitioner Ernest Allen Bailey’s petition for habeas corpus on the grounds that his state court conviction for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder violated Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Respondent Magg

MURDOCK, Justice (dissenting in case no. 1071624 and concurring in case no. 1071665). I respectfully dissent as to the main opinion’s affirmance of the judgment on Bailey’s medical-negligence claim (case no. 1071624). I concur as to the affirmance by the main opinion of the trial court’s judgment as a matter of law on Bailey’s wantonness claim (case no. 1071665).

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

CHAPMAN, Justice. This is a summary judgment case. Appellant H. D. Bailey sued Ben Miller for damages to his automobile growing out of a collision between an automobile owned by Miller and driven by Buster Allen Smith and appellant’s unattended automobile sitting on a used car lot. Following appellee’s motion for summary judgment, his accompanying affidavit and appellee’s opposing affidavit, judgment was

233 Md. 138 (1963) 195 A.2d 601 BAILEY, ET AL. v. MILLER, ET UX. [No. 109, September Term, 1963.] Court of Appeals of Maryland. Decided December 10, 1963. The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ. John H. Mitchell, with whom were Edward S. Digges and Digges & Mitchell

STROUD, Judge. *86 Plaintiff Wayne Morgan Miller ("Husband") appeals from several orders entered by the district court related to his divorce from defendant Cynthia Bailey Miller ("Wife"). Husband raises both procedural and substantive issues with the trial court's equitable distribution order.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwight L. Bailey, M.D. (“Dr. Bailey”) and Appalachian Emergency Physicians (“AEP”) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from a $2.75 million jury verdict in favor of Karen Taylor Bagheri (“Appellee”) in a medical malpractice action involving death. On appeal, Appellants argue, among other issues,

In re Miller, Antonial; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court, Nos. 48, 155, 48, 330, 48, 582, 48, 907, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit Nos. CA92-1178, CA92-1179, CA92-1180, CA92-1181, CA92-1182, CA92-1183, CA92-1184, CA92-1185. Denied. DENNIS, J., would grant the writ. CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.

629 So.2d 358 (1993) Antonial MILLER v. Steven S. BAILEY, et al. No. 93-C-2103. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 5, 1993. Denied. DENNIS, J., would grant the writ. CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.

621 So.2d 1174 (1993) Antonial MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven S. BAILEY, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 92-1178. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. June 30, 1993. *1178 Stephen Mark Morrow Sr., for Antonial Miller. Gary James Beauchamp, for State, DOTD. Edward M. Campbell, for State, DPS.

SALTER, J. Walter Bailey appeals his convictions and sentences for murder, attempted murder, robbery with a firearm, and burglary. His appeal addresses (a) an order excluding a defense expert -witness on eyewitness identification and (b) claims of prosecutorial misconduct during the presentation of the State’s case and in closing argument. We affirm on each of these issues.

PHIPPS, Presiding Judge. Elmer Lamar Bailey was with his cousin when the vehicle they were traveling in crossed the centerline of a highway, struck an embankment, and overturned. Bailey, who appeared to be the driver of the vehicle, was trapped in the car and seriously injured. After an ambulance took Bailey to the hospital, an investigating officer found a box containing drugs

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This products liability action is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ two motions (Doc. Nos. 24 & 39) to remand the case to state court. Twelve individual Plaintiffs seek to hold four inter-related corporations liable, under Missouri tort law, for the manufacture and sale of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”), environmental and dieta

Roberts, J. In this action the plaintiff, who claims to be chief of one of the clans of the Tonawanda Seneca Indian Tribe, seeks to enjoin excavation of the Indian burial ground near the city of Geneva, Ontario County, N. Y. This is a motion for a temporary injunction pending trial of said action. It is the policy of the law that except for good and substantial reasons the quiet of the grave and the repose of t

MILLER, District Judge. An Illinois trial court convicted Hernandez Bailey of one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder. His trial counsel, William Swano, hadn’t filed a discovery motion, so he (like the prosecutor through much of the prosecution’s case) didn’t know that one of the eyewitnesses had testified before a grand jury. Mr. Swano received a transcript of that grand jury testimony after the witness left th

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Lubell, J.), dated February 15, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to reargue her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order of the same court dated December 12, 2011, denying the motion, and thereupon granted the motion.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Lubell, J.), dated February 15, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to reargue her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order of the same court dated December 12, 2011, denying the motion, and thereupon granted the motion.

PER CURIAM. AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.