Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Bobbie Thomas”
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2021-SA-00375-COA BOBBIE THOMAS APPELLANT v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM APPELLEE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/2021 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT C
Bobbie Thomas v. United Mortgage Trustpublic domain
Order entered March 14, 2014 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00004-CV BOBBIE THOMAS, Appellant V. UNITED MORTGAGE TRUST, ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 191st Judicial
Bobbie Thomas v. United Mortgage Trustpublic domain
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed March 14, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00004-CV BOBBIE THOMAS, Appellant V. UNITED MORTGAGE TRUST, STERLING TRUST COMPANY, UMT LT TRUST, AND SOUTH CENTRAL MORTGAGE, INC., Appellees
Bobin Thomas George v. Bobbie Ann Dirrpublic domain
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00153-CV Bobin Thomas GEORGE, Appellant v. Bobbie Ann DIRR,
Bobin Thomas George v. Bobbie Ann Dirrpublic domain
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 3, 2025 No.04-25-00153-CV Bobin Thomas GEORGE, Appellant v. Bobbie Ann DIRR, Appe
NUMBER 13-24-00308-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG CJE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Appellant, v. BOBBIE KRYNICKI AND THOMAS KRYNICKI, Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 6
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 13-24-00308-CV CJE CONSTRUCTION, LLC v. BOBBIE KRYNICKI AND THOMAS KRYNICKI On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 of Hidalgo County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CL-23-2756-F JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH C
Bobby Thomas v. State of Mississippipublic domain
IRVING, P.J., for the Court: ¶ 1. This appeal is the result of the denial by the Circuit Court of Claiborne County of Bobby Thomas’s motion for post-conviction relief (PCR), in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary. Thomas raises five is
Michael Nelson v. Bobbie Robinson.public domain
Michael Nelson ("the father") appeals from a judgment ordering him to pay half of the parties' child's postminority educational expenses. Bobbie Robinson ("the mother") was *Page 2 ordered to pay the other half of the child's postminority educational expenses. The record indicates the following. On May 6, 2010, the mother filed a petition for modification of the father's child-support obligation, seeking postminority educational support on
Thomas v. State, Florida Department of Correctionspublic domain
CLARK, J. In the circuit court, Bobby Thomas sought a writ of mandamus to overturn final agency action by the Florida Department of Corrections in prison disciplinary proceedings. He now challenges the circuit court’s final Order Dismissing in Part and Denying in Part his petition for writ of mandamus. Pursuant to Whisner v. Moore, 825 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), this proceeding is treated as an appeal of the cir
Commonwealth v. Thomaspublic domain
OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: Appellant, Khalif Thomas, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after a jury convicted him of one count each of murder in the first degree, carrying a firearm without a license, and possessing an instrument of crime. 1 Sentenced to a mandat
Ex parte Thomaspublic domain
Transferred to Morgan Cir. Ct.
Ex parte Thomaspublic domain
Transferred to Morgan Cir. Ct.
Bobbie Coleman v. Gannen Mantheypublic domain
BEAM, Circuit Judge. Mrs. Bobbie J. Coleman (Mrs. Coleman) sued law-enforcement and prison officials after her son, Billy Wayne Coleman (Coleman), committed suicide in his jail cell. These interlocutory appeals arise from the *536 district court’s 1
In Re Thomaspublic domain
241 P.3d 104 (2010) In the Matter of Bobby Lee THOMAS, Jr., Respondent. No. 104,340. Supreme Court of Kansas. October 29, 2010. Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Frank D. Diehl, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for the petitioner. *105 Bobby Lee Thomas, Jr.
Thomas v. Hardwickpublic domain
*144OPINION By the Court, Pickering, J.: Bobbie Thomas appeals from a judgment entered on a defense verdict in her wrongful death suit against Dr. Wayne Hardwick, his practice group, and Washoe Medical Center. Her suit alleges that medical malpractice led to her husband’s preventable heart attack and death two weeks after Dr. Hardwick
In Re Thomaspublic domain
193 P.3d 907 (2008) In the Matter of Bobby Lee THOMAS, Jr., Respondent. No. 100,414. Supreme Court of Kansas. October 17, 2008. *908 Frank D. Diehl, deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, disciplinary administrator, was with him on the formal complaint for petitioner. John J. Ambrosio, Ambrosi
Thomas Whitaker v. Bryan Collierpublic domain
JAMES E. GRAVES, JR., Circuit Judge, dissenting: Because I would vacate the district court’s order of dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and remand, I respectfully dissent. In September of 2013, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s (TDCJ) supply of Nembutal, the brand name of pentobarbital, prescribed by the current executio
Robert Ford Bobbie Sue Ford v. Gacs, Inc., Robert Ford Bobbie Sue Ford v. Gacs, Inc. General Motors Corporationpublic domain
HANSEN, Circuit Judge. GACS, Inc. (hereinafter “GACS”) appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict awarding Robert Ford both compensatory and punitive damages on his products liability and negligence claims for injuries he sustained while using a product designed by GACS. Robert Ford and Bobbie Sue Ford cross-appe
United States v. Thomaspublic domain
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: The question in this case is whether, when predisposition to commit an offense is at issue, a defendant may introduce evidence concerning his record of past acts or whether only the government is free to introduce such evidence. In entrapment cases, it is in the defendant’s interest to seek to establish that his past record is that of a model citizen, while it is in the prosecution’s to show that