Cases

OPINION OF THE COURT Chief Judge Lippman. The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether the court violated defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when it granted the People’s request to cross-examine him about the underlying facts of a rape conviction that was then on direct appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that a defendant with a conviction pending appeal ma

[Cite as MidFirst Bank v. Spencer, 2020-Ohio-106.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA MIDFIRST BANK, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 108292 v. : GERALD A. SPENCER, ET AL.,

Kennedy, J. I. Introduction {¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal, we consider whether the Seventh District Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision to deny the motion filed by appellant, Christopher L. Anderson, to dismiss his indictment. Anderson filed the motion to dismiss after the state gave notice of its intent to retry him following a series of mistrials that were declared in his c

OPINION AND ORDER RUDY LOZANO, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Second Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mondra D. Brown on July 5, 2012. For the reasons set forth below, the habeas corpus petition is GRANTED and the State of Indiana is ORDERED to either release Mondra D. Brown or permit him to pursue a direct appeal with the a

2019 WI 110 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2017AP880-W COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin ex rel. Joshua M. Wren, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. Reed Richardson Warden, Respondent. REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FILED:

2019 WI 110 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2017AP880-W COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin ex rel. Joshua M. Wren, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. Reed Richardson Warden, Respondent. REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FILED:

ORDER GRANTING SHELL’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART¡ DOW’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING DOLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT TV KURREN, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court, pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is Shell Oil Company’s, Shell Petroleum Inc.’s, Shell Chemical Company’s, and She

2019 WI 106 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2017AP1720-CR COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert James Pope, Jr., Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

ROWE, J. The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) and the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) appeal the trial court’s order invalidating OlR’s approval of a 14.5% increase in workers’ compensation insurance rates. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the order in its entirety. I. Facts OIR regulates a

Filed 2/5/21; Opinion on transfer from Supreme Court CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO JON WILMOT, Petitioner and Appellant, A152100 v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (Contra Costa County EM

ANNUNZIATA, J., with whom FITZPATRICK, C.J., BENTON, ELDER, and CLEMENTS, JJ., join, dissenting. For the reasons that follow, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to deny Krieger court-appointed counsel on appeal and a free copy of any available transcripts. *586 A. Indigent Litigant’s Right to

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION SHUBB, District Judge. Named plaintiff Kristy Schwarm has filed a class action against defendants Henry Craighead and his company, District Attorney Technical Services, Ltd. (“DATS”), d/b/a Computer Support Services; John Lawson; Marcy Chase; and Does 1 through 20 (“defendants”). This action arises from plaintiffs allegation that defendants are debt coll

293 F.Supp.2d 920 (2003) Matthew TYLER, Petitioner, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, Respondent. No. 03-C-0514. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. November 12, 2003. *921 Matthew Tyler, pro se. Karla Keckhaver, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Madison, WI, for Respondent.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. TATEL, Circuit Judge: Claiming a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, appellants challenge an employee benefit plan that provides twenty-four months of long-term disability benefits for persons suffering from mental or psychological disabilities but a longer period of benefits for those with p

272 F.Supp.2d 1112 (2003) Linda AKEE et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. 00-CV-382BMK. United States District Court, D. Hawai`i. July 21, 2003. *1113 *1114 *1115 *1116

85 F.Supp.2d 842 (2000) ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SUNCLIPSE, INC., Defendant. No. 98 C 1152. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. January 19, 2000. *843 *844 Ellen B. Van Vechten, Smith, Williams & Lodge, Chicago, IL, Marlene Ann Kurilla, Fred A. Smi

913 F.Supp. 1486 (1996) Sherri A. HINTZ, Plaintiff, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security,[1] Defendant. Civil Action No. 95-2227-GTV. United States District Court, D. Kansas. January 24, 1996. *1487 Stephen M. Kirschbaum, Wyandotte-Leavenworth Legal Services, Kansas City, KS, for plaintiff.

POLLAK, District Judge: This case presents two questions regarding the interpretation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., in the context of the District Court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. In Part I, we consider the question whether a former employee— as against a current employee or an applicant — is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), which

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge. I. JURISDICTION The' defendant, Kareem Nagib, was convicted of drug trafficking on October 1,1990, but he failed to file a timely notice of appeal as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b). See 936 F.2d 292, 295 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 950, 112 S.Ct. 399, 116 L.Ed.2

[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _______________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT