Cases

Memorandum Opinion and Order Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge .John Brown brought this suit against Ralph Porter in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, after he was injured on a boat piloted by Porter. Doc. 1-1. Porter timely removed the suit to this court, citing the admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Doc. 1. Brown has moved to remand the suit to state court, arguing that

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SONYA PORTER, Sheriff of Logan County, West Virginia, Petitioner FILED November 13, 2019 vs) 18-0729 (Logan County No. 13-C-165) released at 3:00 p.m. E

13 Mich. App. 6 (1968) 163 N.W.2d 709 BROWN v. PORTER. Docket Nos. 2,884, 2,885. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided August 27, 1968. Leave to appeal denied November 22, 1968. Austin A. Howard, for plaintiffs. Nunneley, Nunneley & Hirt, for defendant. Leave to appeal denied by Supreme Court Nove

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Sonya Porter, Sheriff of Logan County, West Virginia, Respondent Below, Petitioner, FILED vs.) No. 15-1213 (Logan County 13-C-165) April 12, 2017 released at 3:00 p.m.

*892 MEMORANDUM OPINION GLEN E. CONRAD, Chief Judge. Abigail Porter filed this declaratory judgment action against The Peninsula Insurance Company (“Peninsula”), seeking a declaration that the injuries she sustained as a passenger on an underinsured all-terrain vehicle were covered under the uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement to an

Reese, Judge. Following a jury trial, Tomeka Porter (hereinafter “Appellant”) was convicted of armed robbery 1 and sentenced to serve 20 years in confinement. She appeals from the denial of her motion for new trial, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and that the trial court erred in ad

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 29, 2005 Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 29, 2005. In The Fourteenth Court

IVERS, Associate Judge: Betty H. Porter appeals a November 7, 1991, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) finding no clear and unmistakable error in an April 1974 rating decision. Betty H. Porter, BVA 91-36384 (Nov. 7, 1991). The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) has filed a motion for summary affirmance. The Court has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252(a) (West 1991)

873 So.2d 538 (2004) Michele T. PORTER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Todd A. PORTER, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. No. 1D03-2124. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. May 21, 2004. Cindy L. Lasky, of the Law Offices of Ned I. Price, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Nancy N. Nowlis, Jacksonville, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. <

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) LINDA M. PORTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 17-cv-2616 (KBJ) ) UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR ) INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, ) ) Defendant. )

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. For the reasons stated below, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed. Appellant Elizabeth D. Porter suffers from migraine headache

935 N.E.2d 1228 (2010) Maurice PORTER, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 20A03-0912-CR-570. Court of Appeals of Indiana. October 27, 2010. *1230 Peter D. Todd, Elkhart, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Brian Reitz, Deputy Attorney General, Indianap

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT S. THOMAS ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 32.) Defendants have filed a response in which they oppose the motion, (ECF No. 37), and Plaintiff has filed a reply. (ECF No. 40.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.

916 S.W.2d 896 (1996) Bennie WOODSON, as Administrator of the Estate of Elizabeth W. Terrell, Deceased, and as Administrator of the Estate of John Thomas Woodson, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTER BROWN LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC., and Felix Ewing Morris, Defendants/Appellees. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville. February 14, 1996. *900 A

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE MOLLY LAMBERTUS, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE GERALD PORTER, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Judge LINDA FAYE DAY-STRANGE, Real Party in Interest. No. 1 CA-SA 14-0085

47 Cal.4th 125 (2009) ANTHONY PORTER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. No. S152273. Supreme Court of California. July 23, 2009. *129 J. Courtney Shevelson, under appointment by the Supreme Court; Glenn A. Nolte, Acting Public Defender, James S. Egar, Public

OPINION BROWN, Judge. Thomas Porter appeals his conviction and sentence for operating a vehicle after a lifetime suspension. Porter raises three issues which we revise and restate as: I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop; and

910 A.2d 1187 (2006) Richard PORTER and another v. Kevin COCO and another. No. 2005-715. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Argued: September 12, 2006. Opinion Issued: November 3, 2006. *1189 Brown and LaPointe, P.A., of Exeter (Scott W. LaPointe on the brief and orally), for the petitioners. McDowell & O

On Application for Rehearing BRYAN, Judge. On application for rehearing, A.J. Brown (“A.J.”) argues that, because we affirmed the judgment in favor of Emily Brown (“Emily”) with regard to her undue-influence claim in the present case in the absence of any evidence indicating undue activity on A.J.’s part in procuring the execution of the July 21, 2006, deeds by R.B. Brown (“R.B.”), our decision i

OPINION JEFFREY V. BROWN, Justice. In this case, appellant Martha A. Gregory d/b/a Workzone Technologies (“Workzone”) sued appellee Porter & Hedges, LLP (“P & H”), a law firm, for breach of fiduciary duty. Workzone alleges the breach occurred during P & H’s representation of Workzone in another piece of litigation. A unanimous jury returned a verdict in favor of P & H, and the trial court