Cases

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Marion App. No. 9-14-08. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Marion County. The records of this court indicate that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due July 17, 2014, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and *1489therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon c

Marion App. No. 9-14-08. This cause was filed as a jurisdictional appeal. Upon consideration of appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction, it is determined by the court that this cause originated in the court of appeals and, therefore, should proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.01. The clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, and the parties

[Cite as Bunting v. Weaver, 2018-Ohio-1465.] COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PAUL BUNTING JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E.

[Cite as Bunting v. Weaver, 2019-Ohio-1628.] COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JUDGES: PAUL EDWARD BUNTING : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Plaintiff-Appellant :

[Cite as Bunting v. Wilson, 2015-Ohio-3156.] COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JUDGES: PAUL EDWARD BUNTING : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Plaintiff-Appellant :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRUCE BUNTING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 22-cv-766 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CVS PHARMACY, LLC, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Dr. Bruce Bunting and Jessie Brinkley (“Plaintiffs”) bring this suit against Defen

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ELLEN MAGEE, d/b/a MAGEE ) FARMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2023-0170-NAC ) CLAYTON BUNTING, SR., CLAYTON ) BUNTING, JR., and PENINSULA ) NURSERIES, INC., ) )

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 19, 2025 Decided April 14, 2026 No. 24-7124 BRUCE BUNTING AND JESSIE BRINKLEY, APPELLANTS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CVS PHARMACY, LLC, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1

ERVIN, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises out of an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Charles Bunting and Kenneth Tyler, two former policemen for the city of Columbia, South Carolina. Bunting and Tyler sued the City *1092of Columbia and various city officials1 claiming that their constitutional rights2

984 P.2d 467 (1999) Mary Lou BUNTING and Nicholas Bunting, as guardians and natural parents of Raef A. Bunting, a minor, Mary Lou Bunting and Nicholas Bunting, Petitioners, v. Charles JAMIESON, M.D., Respondent. No. 98-287. Supreme Court of Wyoming. July 16, 1999. *468 Representing Petitioners: P. Richard Meyer of Meyer and Willi

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O’Brien, III, J.), entered October 29, 2003 in Chemung County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing. Petitioner is currently incarcerated and serving a term of 20 years to life in prison upon his conviction of murder in the second degree. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging, among o

___________ No. 96-1080 ___________ Gerald Bunting, Representative * of Decedent Tracy Bunting, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Sea Ray, In

104 Ill. App.3d 291 (1982) 432 N.E.2d 950 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENNETH BUNTING, Defendant-Appellant. No. 80-1644. Illinois Appellate Court — First District (1st Division). Opinion filed February 1, 1982. *292 James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (R.H.R. Silve

BEAM, Circuit Judge. Gerald Bunting appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion for a new trial after an adverse jury verdict on his products liability and wrongful death action. He also appeals several of the district court’s eviden-tiary rulings. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND

VAN der VOORT, Judge: Appellant was found guilty by a jury of four counts of Terroristic Threats (18 Pa.C.S. § 2706). He raises three arguments on this appeal. 1. Appellant’s first argument is that the statute is “unconstitutionally vague.” The language of the section is as follows: “A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degre

OPINION AND ORDER 1 LETTOW, Judge. Petitioner, Frances Campbell, seeks review of a decision by a special master dated July 7, 2009, denying her compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub.L. No. 99-660, § 311, 100 Stat. 3743, 3755 (1986) (codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-l to -34) (“Vaccine Act”). Ms. Campbell alleges that her

Campbell, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from a decree setting aside a deed from Josie R. Haynes to her son, W. R. Haynes, as voluntary and fraudulent. The facts may be summarized as follows: Josie R. Haynes purchased a house and lot in the city of Richmond in the year 1918, and placed thereon a deed of trust securing the sum of $3,765.00. On February 12, 1925, J

BRUNETTI, Circuit Judge, Dissenting. Today, the majority goes against the great weight of circuit court authority1 by holding that exclusionary clause of § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) applies to all contracts of employment within the scope of the Commerce Clause and that we therefore lack jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal. Because I find that the plain languag

Opinion MOON, J. Joseph H. Campbell, appellant, seeks reversal of his conviction of forging a public record in violation of Code § 18.2-168. He alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the crime had to be “to the prejudice of another” or to the gain of the defendant, and incorrectly defined “intent to defraud” in a jury instruction. We hold that “to the prejudice of another” is no