Cases

Following a bench trial, defendant Wesley Slayton was found guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to conduct an incamera inspection of the State's felony review folder; and (3) the compulsory extraction and inclusion of his DNA in state and national databases, pursuant to section 5-4-3 of the Unified Code

Last Term, in Kinsel v. Lindsey , we noted that Texas has never recognized a cause of action for intentional interference with inheritance but left open the question whether we should do so. 1 Today, to eliminate continuing confusion over the matter and resolve a split among the courts of appeals, we answer that question. Because ex

Garry, J.P. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to review a determination of respondent revoking petitioner’s pistol permit. In 1987, petitioner applied for and was granted a pistol permit. In 2008, petitioner was involved in a domestic dispute with his spouse, and, as a result, he was charged with h

PRESIDING JUSTICE WOLFSON delivered the opinion of the court: Ronald Coverson was shot several times as he stood outside of his car on the early morning of December 20, 2001. The main evidence presented against the defendant Arthur Shanklin was (1) the testimony of Coverson’s girlfriend, Candice Hibbler, who was present when the murder occurred and identified the defendant i

413 F.Supp.2d 657 (2006) Edward N. BELL, Petitioner, v. William Page TRUE, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent. No. 7:04 CV 00752. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia. Roanoke Division. February 7, 2006. *658 *659 *660

Norval, J. The R. J. Gunning Company, plaintiff below, is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois, with its principal office at Chicago, and engaged in the business of display advertising, leasing walls in different cities for that purpose. The defendants below, Charles Shiverick & Co., are a partnership engaged in the furniture and carpet business in the city of Omaha, occupying as lessees the four-s