Cases

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-90,536-02 EX PARTE DEREK ANDREW BODDEN, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. W14-52852-N(B) IN THE 283RD DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY SLAUGHTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., HERVEY, RICHARDSON, NEWELL, KEEL, and MCCLURE, JJ., joined. YEARY and WAL

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-90,536-01 EX PARTE DEREK ANDREW BODDEN, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. W14-52852-N(A) IN THE 195TH DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY Per curiam. OPINION Applicant was convicted of fraudulent use or p

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-90,536-01 EX PARTE DEREK ANDREW BODDEN, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. W14-52852-N(A) IN THE 195TH DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 25, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D20-1139 Lower Tribunal Nos. 19-18146, 19-18147 & 19-16592 ________________ Martin Bodden,

Affirmed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 791 MAL 2016 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Superior Court v. : :

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 26, 2021 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00405-CR DEREK ANDREW BODDEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

Affirmed CP-36-CR-0004373-2014 (Lancaster)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 920 MAL 2014 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the : Order of the Superior Court v. : : : DREW CARL BODDEN, :

Defendant did not preserve his claim that his weapon convictions were based on legally insufficient evidence, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We. also reject defendant’s claim that these convictions were against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. D

19 N.Y.3d 862 (2012) 970 N.E.2d 434 947 N.Y.S.2d 411 PEOPLE v. BODDEN. Not in source. Court of Appeals of New York. Decided May 17, 2012. Application in criminal case for leave to appeal denied. (Lippman, Ch. J.).

Defendant did not preserve his claim that his weapon convictions were based on legally insufficient evidence, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We also reject defendant’s claim that these convictions were against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. De

PER CURIAM: * At issue is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment, dismissing Zamora’s maritime and Jones Act claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We agree with the district court that there was no jurisdiction. Furthermore, we also agree with the district court that to the extent that there are any remaining claims over which the court has jurisdiction, they are unt

ENOCHS, Judge. *28 Christine Bodden a/k/a Christine Dryfus ("Defendant") appeals from the trial court's judgment against her, and the trial court's order awarding costs to Bradley Woodcraft, Inc. ("Plaintiff"). On appeal, she contends that the trial court erred in (1) entering a directed verdic

Bodden v Holiday Mtn. Fun Park Inc. (2021 NY Slip Op 07330) Bodden v Holiday Mtn. Fun Park Inc. 2021 NY Slip Op 07330 Decided on December 23, 2021 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Rep

*525A cause of action to impose a constructive trust is governed by a six-year statute of limitations, which begins to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to a duty of restitution (see CPLR 213 [1]; DeLaurentis v DeLaurentis, 47 AD3d 750, 751 [2008]; Auffermann v Distl, 56 AD3d 502 [2008]; Reiner v Jaeger, 50 AD3d 761 [2008]). Where, as here, the plain

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MARK D. BODDEN, ) ) Appellant, )