Cases

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice (dissenting). [¶ 24.] I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the trial court’s findings as clearly erroneous. Moreover, the trial court committed significant errors of law. I would reverse and remand for a trial on the merits of the breach of contract and foreclosure claims. [¶ 25.] When Donovan purportedly assigned his rights to Powell, Brown had three options: (1

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The record supports Supreme Court’s determination that the parties did not intend to abandon the separation agreement (see, Lippman v Lippman, 192 AD2d 1060, 1061; Zambito v Zambito, 171 AD2d 918, 920, appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1125). Defendant’s co

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, *846Latham, J. — Matrimonial.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurl-butt, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.

531 So.2d 731 (1988) James M. BROWN, Jr., and Bianca Brown, Appellants, v. Jack POWELL, et al., Appellees. James M. Brown, Jr., and Bianca Brown, Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. Betty Simmons, Appellee/Cross Appellant, and Jack Powell, et al., Appellees. Nos. 87-2216, 87-2477 and 87-2881. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. September 7, 1988.

Pit’s Pro Se Motion for Notice of Appeal Dismiss ex mero motu

Pit’s Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration Dismissed

641 S.E.2d 519 (2007) POWELL v. BROWN. No. S06A1581. Supreme Court of Georgia. January 22, 2007. Reconsideration Denied February 26, 2007. *520 Dwight L. Thomas, Atlanta, for Powell. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Dist. Atty., Daniel James Quinn, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Brown. BENHAM, Justice. This

Brown, J. ¶13 (dissenting) Personal service of process is not sufficient under RCW 4.28.080(15) when mistakenly left with a party’s neighbor and the neighbor then, by chance, delivers the process to the intended party. Because that occurred here, I disagree with the superior court’s decision to deny CR 12(b)(5) dismissal of Ellen Brown-Edwards’ personal injury action against James and Shirley Powell. We should not retreat from th

182 P.3d 441 (2008) Ellen BROWN-EDWARDS, Respondent, v. James and Shirley POWELL, husband and wife; Petitioners, Jenne Tiffany and John Doe Tiffany, husband and wife, Defendants. No. 26028-3-III. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3. April 17, 2008. Steven Robert Stocker, Stocker, Smith, Luciani & Staub PLLC, Spokane, WA, for Petitioners. Gregor

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR PER CURIAM. This is a wrongful death case. The decedent was killed in a one-car accident while riding as a guest of Michael Powell, the driver of the vehicle, who also lost his life in the accident. Suit was brought by the decedent’s parents, petitioners here, to recover from Michael Powell’s father, respondent, on the theory of negligent en-trustment. The jury found that

This is a wrongful death case under the Texas guest statute. Stephen Brown, the son of appellants, was killed in a one-car collision, while riding as the guest of Michael Powell, the son of appellee. Michael Powell was also killed in the accident. Appellants brought this wrongful death action against appellee Powell on a negligent entrustment theory. Trial was to a jury, but the trial court granted judgment non obstante veredicto for appellee. On the night of the fatal a

478 F.2d 1398 Brownv.Powell 72-1795 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Third Circuit 5/22/73 1 M.D.Pa. AFFIRMED

[Cite as Powell v. Lawson, 2019-Ohio-4993.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Bryant O. Powell, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : Nos. 18AP-289 and 18AP-360 v. : (C.P.C. No. 10JU-17377) Ashley N. Lawson,

[Cite as Brown v. Brown, 2019-Ohio-3619.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY LEAH KATE BROWN, : Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2019-01-007 : OPINION - vs - 9/9/2019

OPINION OF THE COURT Ira H. Margulis, J. Defendant is charged with two counts of robbery in the first degree. On January 30, March 13, and April 8, 2014, this court held a Frye hearing as to whether or not the court should allow expert testimony on the issue of false confessions at the trial of this defendant. In support of the motion to allow this testimony, the defendant called Dr. Allison Redl

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ansel P. Street appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Street v. Mrs. Powell, N

Kulik, J. ¶1 — A jury convicted Larry Powell of first degree robbery and second degree assault. At sentencing, the court relied on two prior strike convictions to support sentences of life without the possibility of parole. The court concluded that Mr. Powell was a persistent offender who should be sentenced under the three strikes provision of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW.1

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge. 1 iWalter Powell III was convicted in a jury trial for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to a total of 480 months’ imprisonment and $8000 in fines. He raises four points on appeal. In his first three points, he contends that the trial court erred in determining that police had probable cause