Cases

DYK, Circuit Judge. The Town of Grafton (the “Town” or “Grafton”) petitions for judicial review a declaratory order of the Surface Transportation Board (“Board”)' finding that 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b) preempts state and local regulations with respect to Grafton & Upton Railroad Company’s (“G & U”) liquid petroleum gas transloading faci

354 S.C. 268 (2003) 580 S.E.2d 159 The STATE, Respondent, v. Oscar Roy PADGETT, Appellant. No. 3608. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard February 11, 2003. Decided March 10, 2003. Rehearing Denied April 22, 2003. *269 Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Hail

Smith, Chief Judge. In this appeal, Jacqueline Padgett challenges the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Georgia Department of Community Health (DCH). DCH made Medicaid payments to providers for the treatment of injuries Padgett received, and it sought to recover those payments by enforcing a lien against a personal injury settlement award Padgett received from the Medical College of Georgia. Padgett con

324 S.C. 22 (1997) 484 S.E.2d 101 Richard PADGETT, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. No. 24598. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Submitted January 22, 1997. Filed April 7, 1997. *25 Assistant Appellate Defender Lisa T. Gregory of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense

Cite as 2015 Ark. 262 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-15-426 DAVID LEE PADGETT, AN Opinion Delivered June 4, 2015 INCAPACITATED PERSON, BY FLOYCE TAYLOR, THE GUARDIAN MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK OF HIS PERSON APPELLANT V. BETTYE R. PADGETT APPELLEE REMANDED.

494 S.E.2d 299 (1997) 229 Ga. App. 500 PADGETT et al. v. CITY OF MOULTRIE et al. No. A97A1131. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 20, 1997. Certiorari Denied March 6, 1998. *300 Kirbo, McCalley & Forehand, William C. McCalley, Moultrie, for appellants. Keith F. Allen, Solicit

105 B.R. 665 (1989) In re Charles W. PADGETT and Patsy A. Padgett, Debtors. BANCFIRST, formerly First National Bank of Seminole, Seminole, Oklahoma, Plaintiff, v. Charles W. PADGETT, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 89-70139, Adv. No. 89-7025. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Oklahoma. September 25, 1989. *666 Larry J. McMains,

303 S.E.2d 344 (1983) ROSE'S STORES, INC. v. Charles E. PADGETT, General Music Corporation, and Futures Management, Ltd. No. 829SC515. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. June 7, 1983. *347 Ward & Smith by David L. Ward, Jr., New Bern, and Perry, Kittrell, Blackburn & Blackburn by Charles F. Blackburn, Henderson, for plai

ORDER PER CURIAM: Mrs. Clara Sue Padgett,2 widow of World War II veteran Barney O. Padgett, applies through counsel pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (2009), for an award of attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $87,802.17 for 565.2 hours of attorney work and $650.23 in expenses. The Secretary challenges (1) whether Mrs. Padgett is a

MEMORANDUM OPINION CHARLES R. SIMPSON III, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on a motion to remand filed by the plaintiff, Penny J. Padgett (“Plaintiff’), against the defendants, Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.,1 John Doe # 1, John Doe # 2, *585Norton H

Opinion KLINE, P. J.— INTRODUCTION Donna Little, the widow of Robert Padgett and the personal representative of his estate, appeals the trial court’s entry of a final qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) enforcing the interest of Robert’s former spouse, Beverly Padgett, in Robert’s pension plan, following the court’s nunc pro tunc entry of an order dividing Robert’s pension plan survi

380 N.E.2d 96 (1978) Charles Luma PADGETT, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). No. 1-478A96. Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District. September 11, 1978. *97 Stephen C. Hass, Evansville, for appellant. Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Alembert W. Brayton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indiana

FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the dismissal of a Section 1983 suit for damages filed by Benjamin Harrison Williams, Jr., a prisoner in the Florida state prison system. 1 *1101 On a standar

THIRD DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MARKLE and PADGETT, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules April 25

*136I SHRIVER, J. This suit involves two questions viz., (1) can either of two holographic instruments be sustained as the last will and testament of Charles E. Padgett, deceased, (2) If so, which of said instruments is his last will and testament. - In the assignments of error, brief and argument of appellants a very clear statement o

Gunter, Justice. This case evolves from a dispute between the contesting parties over their respective interests in a tract of land or in the proceeds of the sale of the land when sold. The jury that heard the case returned a verdict in favor of *533the defendant-appellee; the trial judge entered a judgment in favor of the appellee, and the terms of that judgment cons

THIRD DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MARKLE and PADGETT, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

SHRIVER, J. This is a will contest involving the question which of two holographic instruments is the last wall and testament of Charles E. Padgett, deceased, or whether either of said instruments can be sustained as his last will and testament. This is the second time that this litigation has been before this Court. The Court’s earlier opinion in this matter is reported in 51 Tenn.App. 134, 364 S.W.(2d) 947. At t

FOURTH DIVISION DILLARD, P. J., BROWN and PADGETT, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules Feb

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: As we embark on this appeal, we must, in the apt words of the district court, “trudge down a long and winding road” 1 that has as much to do with the extensive history behind the original complaint as it does with the procedural complexities in its wake. The appeal requires us to consider, as