Cases

*191ORDER PER CURIAM. Ms. Cinda Chapman appeals a circuit court judgment denying her motion to modify visitation. Dr. McIntyre files a cross-appeal from the court’s decision denying his request for sole physical custody. Because we find that the circuit court did not err in awarding joint legal and physical custody of the minor child to the parties, w

2023 IL 128300 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket No. 128300) MATT CHAPMAN, Appellee, v. THE CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, Appellant. Opinion filed May 18, 2023. JUSTIC

681 F.Supp.2d 473 (2010) Alan NEWTON, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK; District Attorneys Mario Merola and Robert T. Johnson, Individually, and in their Official Capacity; Andrea Freund and Various John/Jane Does, Individually and in their Official Capacities as Employees of the City of New York who are/were Assistant District Attorneys within the Office of the District Attorney, County of Bronx; Detective Joanne Newbert, Detective Phillip Gal

640 F.Supp.2d 426 (2009) Alan NEWTON, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK; District Attorneys Mario Merola and Robert T. Johnson, Individually, and in Their Official Capacity; Andrea Freund and Various John/Jane Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities As Employees of the City of New York Who Are/Were Assistant District Attorneys Within the Office of the District Attorney, County of Bronx; Detective Joanne Newbert, Detective Phillip Gal

OPINION Opinion by Justice LANG-MIERS. The City of Dallas filed these interlocutory appeals from orders denying its pleas to the jurisdiction in four lawsuits filed against the City by current and former police officers, firefighters, and rescue officers (the Officers) alleging that the City breached its contract with them regarding their pay. We consolidated the appeals for the purpose of

388 Argued and submitted September 15; decision and order of dismissal of Court of Appeals reversed, case remanded to Court of Appeals for further proceedings December 31, 2020 STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on Review, v. ALLISON CHAPMAN, aka Alison Chapman, aka Allison Kate Chapman, Pe

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District  JOHN NEWTON,   WD81343 Appellant,  OPINION FILED: v.   April 16

Adkins, J. In posteonvietion cases, we must often navigate the fine line between a defendant’s right to a fair trial on the one hand and the legal system’s interest in finality on the other. Today we are faced with the question of whether a posteonvietion petitioner’s trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in consenting to the presence of an alternate juror during deliberations. ■ We also address whether his appellate

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 15-1113 Filed June 15, 2016 TODD THOEMING, CHRISTINE THOEMING, JAMES CHAPMAN, and BRITTNEY CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellants, vs. THE CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA, WILLIAM E. GLUBA, and MICHAEL CLARKE, Defendant-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson (part

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *195AND ORDER1 SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION New York City and forty-two New York counties have brought suit against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and subsidiaries alleging Medicaid fraud in violation of the federal Best Prices Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT en banc RONALD WILLIAMS, ) ) Respondent, ) WD83835 v. ) (Consolidated with WD83938) ) ) OPINION FILED: CITY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 2019 TERM FILED No. 18-0653 November 19, 2019 released at 3:00 p.m. EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2021-CA-00684-COA DAVID L. KIRK AND I. B. LOGISTICS, INC. APPELLANTS v. ASHLEY NICOLE NEWTON APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/16/2020 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WINSTON L. KIDD COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1684 Doc: 61 Filed: 05/30/2023 Pg: 1 of 50 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1684 DARRYL HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF DURHAM; DARRELL DOWDY, in his individual and official capacities; MICHELE SOUCIE,

Lucy Gravlee Chapman, M.D.; Anesthesiology Pain Medicine, P.C.; and HealthSouth Medical Center, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the appellants"), appeal from the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court granting Linda P. Smith and Jimmy Joe Smith's postjudgment motion and ordering a new trial. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Facts and Procedural History On June 24, 1996, Linda P. Smith sued the appellants, alleging medical malprac

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 211 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 212 The appeal is from a decree in a proceeding of declaratory judgment brought in by answer and cross bill to an original bill in equity

RAGGI, Circuit Judge. Defendanb-Appellant Sewn Newton, who was found guilty after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastérn District of New York (David G. Trager, Judge) of being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is presently incarcerated, serving a 180-month sentence. In now appealing his December 12, 2002

PER CURIAM. Glenn Bynum and Larry Gipson appeal from the trial court’s order holding that certain amendments to § 28-2A-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, which statutes involve the sale of alcoholic beverages in a municipality, were not unconstitutional. We reverse and remand. *65 Facts and Procedural History In 1984, the legislatu

118 S.W.3d 742 (2003) KING RANCH, INC., et al. v. William Warren CHAPMAN, III, et al. No. 01-0430. Supreme Court of Texas. Argued April 2, 2003. Decided August 28, 2003. Rehearing Denied November 21, 2003. *745 Howard P. Newton, San Antonio, James H. Robichaux, Corpus Christi, Matthews & Bran

DORSEY, Justice, Dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Appellants seek a bill of review as a direct attack to set aside a consent judgment entered in 1883. They contend that the judgment must be set aside because Richard King and his attorney, Robert Kleberg, committed extrinsic fraud in securing the judgment. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment for the appellee, King Ranch.