Cases

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District  WANDA L. ALBERTS, ET AL.,   Appellants,  WD84235 v.   OPINION F

IRVING, P.J., for the Court: ¶ 1. This appeal ensued after the Circuit Court of Forrest County affirmed the decision of the Board of Review of the Mississippi Department of Employment Security (the Board of Review) granting unemployment benefits to Tempestt Griffin, a former employee of Over The Rainbow Daycare (Rainbow). Rainbow argues that the circuit cour

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 10, 2002 CHRISTOPHER DAVID HODGE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Post-Conviction Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 72957 Ray L. Jenkins, Judge No. E2002-01149-CCA-R3-PC July

661 F.3d 212 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawna TICKLES, also known as Shawna Tickless, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jabar Gibson, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 10-30852, 10-31085. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. October 19, 2011. *213 Cat

50 Cal.App.4th 1001 (1996) In re CHRISTOPHER H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GARY H., Defendant and Appellant. Docket No. F024855. Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District. October 15, 1996. *1004 COUNSEL Bradley A. Bristo

OPINION The plaintiff, Marshall Contractors, Inc. (Marshall), appeals from the entry of final judgment in the Superior Court in favor of the defendant, Brown University (Brown). The Superior Court litigation, tried before a jury, concerned a dispute over payment for the construction of the Paul Bailey Pizzitola Memorial Sports Facility on Lloyd Avenue in the city of Providence. In this appeal Marshall alleges a number of trial court errors. Because we

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEVEN FISHMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 18-cv-1369 (CRC) ROD ROSENSTEIN, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Federal inmates Steven Fishman and David Carroll Stephenson challenge the constitutionality of the “Non-Exis

662 F.Supp.2d 562 (2009) Vernon MERCIER, derivatively on behalf of Massey Energy Company, Plaintiff, v. Don L. BLANKENSHIP, Baxter Phillips, Jr., Dan Moore, E. Gordon Gee, Richard M. Gabrys, James Crawford, Bobby R. Inman, Robert H. Foglesong, H. Drexel Short, Jr., J. Christopher Adkins, Jeffrey M. Jarosinski, Lady Barbara Thomas Judge, Stanley C. Suboleski, Elizabeth Chamberlin, and Thomas Cook, Defendants, and Massey Energy Company, a Delaw

PRADO, Circuit Judge, joined by STEWART, Chief Judge, DAVIS, DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges, dissenting from Denial of Rehearing En Banc, Six days after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, a group of heavily-armed New Orleans police officers opened fire on eight unarmed black pedestrians near the Dan-ziger Bridge in New Orleans, Louisiana, killing two and wounding four. Among the victims was a

ROSEMARY LEDET, Judge. | iThis appeal arises out of a pre-trial dispute regarding attorney’s fees and costs. Attempting to preserve their alleged rights to recover such fees and costs, the plaintiff, Robin Lawyer, and her attorney, the law firm of Roussel & Clement, APC (the “Roussel Firm”) (collectively the “Intervenors”) filed an intervention in this asbestos exposure case. In response, the three co-plaintiffs and se

OPINION CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from, inter alia, the District Court’s order dismissing the third amended complaint in five cases: Collette Davis, et al. v. Abington Memorial Hospital, et al., No. 09-cv-05520; Kenneth Lynn, et al. v. Aria Health System, et al., No. 09-cv-05548

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ■ EDWARD J. DAVILA, United States District Judge On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff Max Sound Corporation (“Max Sound”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against three defendants: Google, Inc., YouTube, LLC and On2 Technologies (collectively, “Defendants”), for the infringement of United States Patent No. 7,974,339 (the “’339 patent”). Dkt. No. 23. Max Sound has

Case: 13-31078 Document: 00513162268 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2015 REVISED August 20, 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-31078 FILED

261 B.R. 534 (2001) In re SUNBEAM SECURITIES LITIGATION. Nos. 98-8258-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS, 99-8275-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. March 26, 2001. *535 Gerald J. Rodos, M. Richard Komins, Jeffrey A. Barrack, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Merrill G. Davidoff, Lawrence Deutsch, Robin B. Switzenbaum, Berger & M

PER CURIAM. This Court granted the petition of Dana Allison Medlock (Petitioner) in its Original Jurisdiction to determine whether a non-attorney who files a claim and petition for allowance of a claim in probate court on behalf of a business entity is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. We dispense with further briefing and hold that a non-attorney may present claims against an estate and petition for allowance of <

ORDER AND REASONS KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Judge. Before the Court is the Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 963) urged originally by defendant Arthur Kaufman, and joined in by the other defendants in this matter.1 The motion is opposed by the government (Rec. Doc. 1007). PARTI 1. Underlying Facts

20 Wn. App. 617 (1978) 581 P.2d 596 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. RODNEY ALBERT WILCOX, Appellant. No. 5689-1. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One. July 3, 1978. Carlson & Spencer and Richard Carlson, for appellant (appointed counsel for appeal). Christopher T. Bayley, Prosecuting Attorney,</

ORDER AND REASONS JANE TRICHE MILAZZO, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion to Vacate the Plea Agreements of Marc Guyton and Dorian Goins (R. Doc. 770), and a Motion to Vacate the Plea Agreements of Harry Berry and Terrance Henderson (R. Doc. 767). For the following reasons, the former is DENIED and the latter GRANTED IN PART. Harry Berry’s plea agreement is hereby VACATED. The plea agreem

Bethel, Justice, concurring. I concur fully in the decision of the Court to vacate the judgment and remand the case. I write separately to emphasize the erroneous nature of the State's closing argument wherein the State suggested to the jury that reasonable doubt is less than 51% - functionally less than a preponderance of the evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof recognized

90 Wn.2d 733 (1978) 585 P.2d 789 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. ALBERT LYMAN BOOGAARD, Defendant, RONALD ROBERT STEVENSON, Appellant. No. 44722. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. October 26, 1978. David Allen of Seattle-King County Public Defender, for appellant. Christopher T. Bayley, Prosecuting Atto