Cases

KING, Senior Judge: This case presents the question of whether Mr. Johnson, a disbarred attorney petitioning for reinstatement, has complied with the requirement that he notify all clients of his discipline, and file an affidavit demonstrating that compliance. We conclude that he has not, and uphold the dismissal of his petition. After the Maryland Court of

ORDER CARR, Chief Judge. This is a securities case. Multiple plaintiffs have brought suit against Dana Corporation and some of its corporate officers alleging the company misstated its earnings, artificially inflating the value of its stock, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a). Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pending are competing mo

PER CURIAM: Pro se petitioner Dana W. Johnson was disbarred in 2002, In re Johnson (Johnson I), 810 A.2d 917 (D.C.2002) (per curiam), and this court denied his first petition for reinstatement in 2014, In re Johnson (Johnson II), 103 A.3d 194 (D.C.2014). Mr. Johnson brought this second petition for reinstatement before the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) after multiple failed att

Nazarian, J. On February 9, 2017, Dana T. Johnson led police on a car chase that ended in a nearly catastrophic accident. Mr. Johnson was arrested and taken to the hospital. As medical personnel removed his clothing, police discovered a large quantity of heroin in his underwear. He was charged and ultimately convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of possession of heroin, vo

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WOLF, DISTRICT JUDGE In this case, plaintiff Dana-Farber Cancer Instituté, Inc. (“Dana-Farber”) seeks to correct inventorship of five patents. Defendants Ono Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Ono”), Tasuku Honjo (“Honjo”), and E.R. Squibb & Sons, L.L.C. and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. (collectively “BMS”) have moved to transfer this case to the District of Delaware, where .they are litigating earli

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-BG-1218 7/28/16 IN RE DANA JOHNSON, PETITIONER. On Report and Recommendation of

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jun 04 2015, 8:21 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Andrea L. Ciobanu Eric J. Benner Alex Beeman

Hines, Justice. Johnny Johnson appeals his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer, both in connection with the death of Deandre Phillips.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. *622Construed to support the verdicts, the evidence showed that in October of 2008, Phillips

ALEXANDER, J. [¶ 1] Kimberly A. Quinty appeals from the judgment of the District Court (York, Janette, J.) granting Steven W. Johnson’s motion to dismiss her motion to extend the spousal support provision of the couple’s 2011 divorce judgment. Quinty argues on appeal that the court misapplied 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(4) and (9) (2016) when it concluded that reinst

Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 91 Stat. 874, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., prohibits a debt collector from asserting any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation,” or using any “unfair or unconscionable means” to collect, or attempt to collect, a debt, §§ 1692e, 1692f. In th

659 S.E.2d 638 (2008) JOHNSON v. The STATE. No. A07A2399. Court of Appeals of Georgia. February 21, 2008. Reconsideration Dismissed March 13, 2008. *639 Daniel L. Henderson, for appellant. Patrick H. Head, District Attorney, Dana J. Norman, Reuben M. Green, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee. <

Background. A grand jury returned an indictment charging Johnson with unlawful possession of a firearm, second or subsequent offense, and being an armed career criminal with three prior qualifying convictions. A second indictment charged him with unlawful possession of ammunition. A jury trial commenced on the possession charges. The jury convicted Johnson on the firearm charge and acquitted him on the ammunition charge. What

CHANDLER, Justice, for the Court: ¶1. This is a direct appeal from the Coahoma County Circuit Court’s dismissal of a garnishment action as time-barred by the seven-year limitations period.1 We affirm the circuit court. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW ¶ 2. This is the third appeal this Court has decided arising out of litigation over a defective

802 F.Supp.2d 1242 (2011) C. Frances THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON AGRI-TRUCKING and Tony Joe Cantrell, Defendants. Case No. 10-2083-EFM. United States District Court, D. Kansas. July 14, 2011. *1243 Kenneth E. Barnes, Tequiero T.K. M. Smith, Barnes Law Firm LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff. Mark A. Buck, Sheila D. Verd

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge: Appellant was convicted by a jury of kidnapping his estranged wife with the intent of committing “immoral” acts (sexually assaulting his wife while their child watched), being a felon in possession of a gun, and using a gun to commit a crime of violence in interstate commerce. He appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his convi

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DANA DAVID JOHNSON, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D13-2441 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed November 14, 2014.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION Alan B. Johnson, United States District Judge Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) and Plaintiffs opposition there to (Doc. 8) have come before the Court for consideration. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the applicable law, and being fully advised, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED for the reasons stated below.

169 F.Supp.2d 744 (1999) DANA CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. FIREMAN'S FUND INS. CO., et al., Defendants The Celotex Corporation, Plaintiff v. Dana Corporation, Defendant Nos. 3:83CV1153, 3:85CV7491. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. October 25, 1999. Richard S. Walinski, Cooper & Walinski, Toledo, OH, John DeQ. Briggs, Howrey &am;

587 S.E.2d 775 (2003) 263 Ga. App. 443 JOHNSON v. The STATE. No. A03A1461. Court of Appeals of Georgia. September 10, 2003. Reconsideration Denied September 29, 2003. *777 Lynn G. Fant, Marietta, for appellant. Patrick H. Head, Dist. Atty., Henry R. Thompson, Dana J. Norman, Asst. D

169 F.Supp.2d 732 (1999) DANA CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. FIREMAN'S FUND INS. CO., et al., Defendants. The Celotex Corporation, Plaintiff v. Dana Corporation, Defendant. Nos. 83CV1153, 85CV7491. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division. August 20, 1999. *733 Richard S. Walinski, Cooper & Walinski, T