Cases

677 S.E.2d 377 (2009) METTS v. The STATE. No. A09A0202. Court of Appeals of Georgia. April 6, 2009. *380 Charles H. Frier, Smyrna, for appellant. Paul L. Howard Jr., Dist. Atty., David K. Getachew-Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee. BERNES, Judge. This case arises out of allegations that Tyson Carmin Mett

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maurice Dunbar appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his complaint without prejudice. Because Dunbar may amend his complaint to cure the defects identified by the district court, the dismissal order is interl

561 S.E.2d 345 (2002) Ronald H. METTS and Reggie Metts, Plaintiffs v. Timmy TURNER and Linda Turner, Defendants. No. COA01-840. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. April 16, 2002. *346 Hunter Bircher, L.L.P. by John C. Bircher, III, New Bern, for plaintiffs-appellees. Henderson, Baxter, Taylor & Gatchel, P.A. by David

995 F.Supp. 283 (1997) Raynard METTS, Petitioner, v. David MILLER, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility, Respondent. No. 96-CV-4191(RR)(RML). United States District Court, E.D. New York. December 12, 1997. *284 Raynard Metts, Napanoch, NY, pro se. Charles J. Hynes, Kings County District Attorney by Roseann B. MacK

511 S.E.2d 508 (1999) 270 Ga. 481 METTS v. The STATE. No. S98A1785. Supreme Court of Georgia. February 8, 1999. *509 Elaine Templeton McGruder, Atlanta, for Bobby Metts. Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Bettieanne C. Hart, David Ellis Langford, Asst. Dist. Attys., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., H.

829 S.W.2d 585 (1992) STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Terrence METTS, Appellant. No. 59374. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One. March 24, 1992. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied April 22, 1992. Application to Transfer Denied June 2, 1992. David C. Hemingway, Ellen A. Blau, St. Louis, for appellant.

OPINION DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge: James Kenneth Goodwin and Eddie Earl Hallman appeal the district court order disallowing approximately fifty-percent (50%) of the fees claimed for Goodwin’s and Hall-man’s attorneys pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1988). Appellee Vernon 0. Maxwell cross-appeals, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to limit its award of attorneys’ fees to a percentage of t

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge: After a jury trial, Vernon 0. Maxwell was held liable for wrongful prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The jury found Maxwell and James R. Metts liable for common law malicious prosecution. It awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs, James Kenneth Goodwin and Eddie Earl Hallman, and assessed punitive damages against Maxwell. Metts and Maxwell appeal from the district court’s denial of th

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan June 27, 2017 Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, WESTERN SECTION AT NASHVILLE _______________________________________________________ ) GINGER C. SNEAD and ) Williamson County Circuit JAMES D. SNEAD, ) Court No. 95405 ) Plaintiffs/Appellants. ) ) VS. ) C.A. N

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan June 27, 2017 Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-94,237-01 EX PARTE MICHAEL DAVID LEWIS, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. CR30418-A IN THE 238TH DISTRICT COURT MIDLAND COUNTY Per curiam. RICHARDSON, J., filed a concurring opinion in which WALKER, J., joined. KELLER, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion i

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-94,237-01 EX PARTE MICHAEL DAVID LEWIS, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. CR30418-A IN THE 238TH DISTRICT COURT FROM MIDLAND COUNTY KELLER, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion in which YEARY and KEEL, JJ., joined.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-94,237-01 EX PARTE MICHAEL DAVID LEWIS, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. CR30418-A IN THE 238TH DISTRICT COURT FROM MIDLAND COUNTY RICHARDSON, J., filed a concurring opinion in which WALKER, J., joined. CONCURRING OPINION

OPINION NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Judge Sylvia Rambo, of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, found plaintiff/appellant’s claim to be barred by the res judica-ta doctrine; she further concluded that the suit was frivolous, and then dismissed it. She also imposed Rule 11 sanctions on plaintiffs attorn

OPINION Laura Carter Higley, Justice Relator David A. Chaumette requests habeas corpus relief from the trial court’s October 11, 2013 “Amended Order Holding Defendant David Chaumette in Contempt and for Commitment to County Jail”. 1 Because we conclude that Relator is entitled to habeas relief, w

215 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2000) Andrew Hedgepeth, Celia Burson, David McCleary, and Gaynell Metts, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.State of Tennessee, State of Tennessee Department of Safety, and Mike Green, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the State of Tennessee Department of Safety, Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-5166 UNITED STATES

WYNN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: When viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the evidence in this case could support a finding that, as a result of Officer Horner’s failure to perform his duties competently and thoroughly, Michael Dwayne Durham (“Durham”) was wrongfully indicted, arrested, and incarcerated. Because I would find that Officer Horner’s mistaken conclusion regarding Durham’s id

885 F.2d 157 James Kenneth GOODWIN; Eddie Earl Hallman, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.James R. METTS, individually and in his official capacity asSheriff of Lexington County, South Carolina; Vernon O.Maxwell, individually and in his official capacity as aLexington County Deputy Sheriff, Defendants-Appellants,andRalph Bishop, individually and d/b/a Bishop Salvage Company,Defendant. No. 88-2135.

GLASSCOCK, Vice Chancellor At common law, real property transferred equally to two or more persons jointly was presumed to be held thereafter by those persons as joint tenants with right of survivorship, unless the documents of transfer provided explicitly that the property would be held as tenants in common. 1 The prim