Cases

03/30/2022 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 15, 2022 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN DAVID GRANT Appeal from the Circuit Court for Robertson County No. 74CC4-2019-CR-609 William R. Goodman, III, Judge ___________________________________

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 28, 2013 NO. 03-12-00539-CR Joseph David Grant, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00539-CR Joseph David Grant, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 69395, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2151 UNITED STATES EX REL. DAVID GRANT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00794-DCN) Argued: Sep

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 106 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS document Date: 2021-06-30 12:00:31 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION IV 9.7.5 No. CV-19-365 Opinion Delivered February 12, 2020 DAVID GRANT

MEMORANDUM** Christina L. Petteruti appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in her medical malpractice action filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Winter v. United States, 244 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summa

MEMORANDUM * Christina Petteruti appeals from the district court order granting summary judgment to defendants on the medical malpractice claim arising out of her Hepatitus B vaccination. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here. Shortly after the district court entered its order granting summary judgment, we issu

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2939 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : Petitioner : : No. 3 DB 2023 v. : : : Attorney Registration No. 330036 DAVID ADDISON GRANT MURRAY,

ELGO, J. *82 The defendant, David Grant, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, *83 of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statute

The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 179 Conn. App. 81, 178 A.3d 437 (2018), is denied.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of : No. 2939 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 : DAVID ADDISON GRANT MURRAY : No. 3 DB 2023 : : (Dauphin County Court of Common : Pleas, CP-22-CR-0000171-2022) :

ORDER PER CURIAM. David Grant (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing because there was an insufficient factual basis to support his guilty pleas. We have reviewed the

VALIHURA, Justice: The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution contains “a substantive due process component” that protects “certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” 1 One of these fundamental liberty interests is the liberty interest of parents to make

DiPENTIMA, C.J. *852The defendant, Winston Grant, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving *853his marriage to the plaintiff, Jennifer Grant, and entering related financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its di

995 A.2d 975 (2010) 414 Md. 483 David GRANT v. STATE of Maryland. No. 88 September Term, 2009. Court of Appeals of Maryland. June 7, 2010. *976 George E. Burns, Jr., Asst. Public Defender (Elizabeth L. Julian, Acting Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on brief for Petitioner. Daniel J. Jawor, Asst. At

DUNCAN, Circuit Judge: *194Relator David Grant brought this qui tam action against his former employer, United Airlines, Inc. ("United"), under the False Claims Act (the "FCA"), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729, et seq. The di

729 F.2d 1465 U.S.v.Gifford (David Grant) NO. 82-2817 United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit. FEB 29, 1984 1 Appeal From: N.D.Ill. 2 AFFIRMED.

OPINION STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice Following a traffic accident, Clemente D. Grant sued' both Raymundo Espíritu and David Barnes for the resulting property damage to “his” vehicle, and sued Es-píritu for conversion of the vehicle. Grant appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his case for want of jurisdiction due to a lack of standing. We affirm.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.