Cases

335 Md. 579 (1994) 644 A.2d 1070 BARBARA F. ANTHONY, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GERALDINE ROSE CLARK v. FRANK H. CLARK. No. 81, September Term, 1993. Court of Appeals of Maryland. July 15, 1994. Reconsideration Denied August 19, 1994. Clifford R. Bridgford, Frederick, for petitioner. Paul Victor Jorgensen

Opinion issued July 30, 2024 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00442-CR ——————————— BRENT ANTHONY SCHUTTER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

57 F.Supp.2d 710 (1999) WISCONSIN BELL, INC. d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN, and Cheryl L. Parrino, Daniel J. Eastman, and Joseph P. Mettner, Defendants. Wisconsin Bell, Inc. d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and Cheryl L. Parrino, Daniel J. Eastman, and Joseph P. Mettner, in their official capacities as members of the Commission, and

27 F.Supp.2d 1149 (1998) WISCONSIN BELL, INC. d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN, and Cheryl L. Parrino, Daniel J. Eastman, and Joseph P. Mettner, Defendants. Wisconsin Bell, Inc. d/b/a Ameritech Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and Cheryl L. Parrino, Daniel J. Eastman, and Joseph P. Mettner, in their official capacities as members of the Commission, and<

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 16a0234p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ CLIFFORD CHARLES TYLER, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant, │

55 F.3d 399 Pens. Plan Guide P 23910QG. Bruce WILSON; Marco L. Gilliam; William H. Jones;Robert E. McVey; Jerry Mooneyham; Edwin R. Acheson; J.Marlene Adams; Betty E. Aldridge; Barbara Alexander; JoAnn Altschul; Virginia S. Amyx; Brenda J. Andrews; SandraK. Anglin; Islo D. Ashmore; Jerry L. Atwood; James D.Bailey; Jimmie F. Bailey; Margaret A. Bailey; Patsy R.Bailey; Jerry F. Baker; John C. Baker; Kat

J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judge. The claimant herein, Clifford Hall, has appealed from a decision of the district court which upheld a determination by the Secretary’s representatives that he had failed to establish that he was entitled to either a period of disability or disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act on

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 16a0234p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ CLIFFORD CHARLES TYLER, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant, │

12 F.3d 225 304 U.S.App.D.C. 199, 1993-2 Trade Cases P 70,449 UNITED STATES of Americav.WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., et al.,Bell Atlantic Corporation, Appellant. Nos. 92-5079, 92-5111 to 92-5113, 92-5167 and 92-5168. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Argued April 14, 1993.Decided Dec. 28, 1993.

DIANA E. MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Appellants, former management employees of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) who accepted the terms of a severance incentive plan offered in 1990, filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 Ú.S.C. § 1001 et. seq., claiming that SWBT; its parent company, SBC Communications; and its Vice President of Human Resources, Robert A. Dickemper, brea

Affirm in part; Reverse and Render in part; Remand and Opinion Filed August 13, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas __________________________________ NO. 05-12-00963-CV CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellant V. ANTHONY ARREDONDO, CHARLES S. SWANER, JAM

DISSENTING OPINION Chief Justice CASTILLE. I respectfully dissent, and I join Mr. Justice Eakin’s Dissenting Opinion. The Majority affirms the award of a new trial premised upon an alleged “error” never raised at trial: specifically, appellees did not object to the “error in judgment” charge on the basis that it was substantively misleading, confusing, and prejudicial.1

HANDLER, J., dissenting. I dissent in this rather ordinary negligence case because the majority finds grounds to exonerate utilities from any responsibility for the placement of telephone poles and, in effect, accords them unwarranted immunity. Generally, I agree with Judge Brochin’s dissent from the Appellate Division’s judgment substantially for the reasons that he set forth, and would reverse and remand the c

304 S.C. 482 (1991) 405 S.E.2d 420 The STATE, Respondent v. Anthony GRAY, Appellant. 1654 Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard April 15, 1991. Decided May 6, 1991. *483 Asst. Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appella

778 F.Supp. 164 (1991) Herman BELL, Anthony Bottom and Albert Washington, Petitioners, v. Thomas A. COUGHLIN, III, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services; Louis Mann, Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility; Charles Scully, Superintendent, Greenhaven Correctional Facility; and Dominic Mantello, Superintendent, Wende Correctional Facility, Respondents. No. 89 Civ. 8408(MEL).

Durham, J. Sheriff's officers seized material from a marijuana-growing operation without a warrant after it had been discovered by fire fighters at the scene of a fire. Kevin Bell was charged with possession of marijuana, RCW 69.50.401(d), but the case was dismissed after the trial court suppressed the evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the warrantless seizure did not violate the state and federal constitutions

Worswick, C.J. The State appeals the suppression of marijuana plants and paraphernalia found in Kevin Bell's attic. The sole issue on appeal is whether police must procure a warrant before helping fire fighters remove contraband found in plain view during a lawful fire investigation. We hold they need not, and reverse. On September 30, 1983, a fire broke out at the home of Kevin Bell. A deputy sheriff saw the

418 F.Supp.2d 684 (2005) R&B, INC. v. NEEDA PARTS MANUFACTURING, INC., et al. No. Civ.A.01-1234. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 23, 2005. *685 *686 Anthony S. Volpe, John J. O'Malley, Volpe & Koenig PC, Philadelphia, PA, for R & B, Inc. Anthony R. Sh

PASHMAN, J., dissenting. The issue in this case is whether the representation of co-defendants by public defenders from the same office denies them effective assistance of counsel. In State v. Land, 73 N.J. 24 (1977), this Court held that representation of co-defendants by a single attorney was unconstitutional absent a valid waiver. Justice Schreiber, writing for a unanimous court, set forth o

727 N.W.2d 546 (2006) 2007 WI App 5 Stephen G. BUTCHER, Randy Meicher and Anthony F. Coffaro, on behalf of themselves and the class they represent, *547 Plaintiffs-Appellants,[†] v. AMERITECH CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Michael Morgan as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and Wisconsin Bell, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation, Defendants-Respondents.