Cases

626 F.3d 999 (2010) Tracy WILBURN, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Social Security Commissioner, Appellee. No. 09-3564. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: September 22, 2010. Filed: December 2, 2010. *1001 David W. Whipple, The Whipple Law Firm, P.C., Independence, MO, argued (Jamie L. Be

OPINION JANE BLAND, Justice. The City of Houston Fire Department placed Captain Shane Wilburn on indefinite suspension — the equivalent of termination — from his captain position, based on Wilburn’s positive results in a random drug test. After the Police Officers and Firefighters’ Civil Service Commission of Houston (Commission) upheld the department’s dis

249 Kan. 678 (1991) 822 P.2d 609 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. EARL E. WILBURN, Appellant. No. 65,525 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed December 6, 1991. J. David Farris, of J. David Farris Law Offices, of Atchison, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant. Gunnar A. Sundby, county attorney, argued the cau

824 S.W.2d 755 (1992) Phyllis WILBURN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 3-90-231-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. February 5, 1992. *757 Donald L. Anderson, Jr., Whitten, Hacker, Hagin, Anderson & Rucker, P.C., Abilene, for appellant. Dan Morales, Atty. Gen., David Randell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Collec

08/07/2024 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 20, 2024 Session VICKI ANN GIRO v. KALEB WILBURN, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County No. 1-160-22 E. Jerome Melson, Judge No. E2023-01541-COA-R3-CV This appeal c

991 So.2d 1185 (2008) Chasity Nicole Smith WILBURN v. William Haywood WILBURN. No. 2007-CA-01385-SCT. Supreme Court of Mississippi. October 2, 2008. *1186 John Thomas Lamar, Jr., David M. Slocum, Jr., Senatobia, attorneys for appellant. T. Swayze Alford, attorney for appellee. Before DIAZ, P.J., CARLSON and RANDOLPH

Opinion MARGULIES, Acting P. J. The intestate heirs of decedent Taruk Joseph Ben-Ali appeal from a judgment admitting the decedent’s will to probate. Appellants contend there was insufficient evidence of due execution under Probate Code1 section 6110. We agree, and reverse the judgment. *1029I. BACKGROUN

MEMORANDUM OPINION CHARLES R. SIMPSON III, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendant, the United States of America, to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). (DN 23). Plaintiffs1 filed a response to the motion (DN 28), to which the United States replied (DN 29). For the reasons set forth her

MEMORANDUM OPINION T.S. ELLIS, III, District Judge. This action arises from an alleged failure of the defendant law firm, which represented the plaintiff company in a separate tort suit in state court, to communicate a so-called “walk-away” offer of settlement to the company. The plaintiff company further alleges that it would have accepted the “walk-away” offer, which would have resolved the tort

670 F.Supp.2d 192 (2009) David WILBURN, Plaintiff, v. EASTMAN KODAK CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 04-CV-6589L. United States District Court, W.D. New York. November 23, 2009. *193 Van Henri White, Law Office of Van White, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff. Elizabeth A. Wolford, The Wolford Law Firm LLP, Rochester, NY, for Defenda

People v David (2022 NY Slip Op 05634) People v David 2022 NY Slip Op 05634 Decided on October 7, 2022 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. <

Michael G. Gotsch, Sr., United States Magistrate Judge There are two motions before the Court. On June 1, 2018, Plaintiffs, Tashianne Wilburn and Quanan Wilburn, the natural parents and guardians of Z.W., a minor child, filed a motion to strike Defendants' fourth and sixth affirmative defenses pursuant to Rule 12(f). On June 6, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike Defendants' jury demand. On June 13, 2018, Defendants, Cynthia N

02/06/2017 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 13, 2016 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICHARD W. WILBURN Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County Nos. F-74351, M-73937, M-73940 & M-73973 David M. Bragg, Judge No. M2016-00704-CCA-R3-C

543 F.Supp. 174 (1982) Brian WILBURN d/b/a Brian Wilburn & Associates, Plaintiff, v. JACK CARTWRIGHT, INC., Defendant. No. 79-C-338. United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin. May 28, 1982. July 15, 1982. *175 Prieve, Meyer & Elser by Albert C. Elser, II and John A. Meyer, Milwaukee, Wis., for plainti

628 S.E.2d 174 (2006) 278 Ga. App. 76 WILBURN v. The STATE. No. A05A2219. Court of Appeals of Georgia. March 7, 2006. *175 David Koontz, Marietta, for Appellant. Patrick H. Head, District Attorney, Grady A. Moore, Dana J. Norman, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee. RUFFIN, Chief Judge

514 F.Supp. 493 (1981) Brian WILBURN d/b/a Brian Wilburn & Associates, Plaintiff, v. JACK CARTWRIGHT, INC., Defendant. No. 79-C-338. United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin. May 18, 1981. *494 Albert C. Elser, II, John A. Meyer, Prieve, Gerlach & Meyer, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff. David J. Cannon, Charles

BENNETT, Circuit Judge. Berney T. Wilburn appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, 19 M.S.P.R. 483 (1984), affirming the Department of Transportation’s release of Wilburn from his competitive level by a demotion. We reverse and remand. BACKGROUND In 1970 Wilburn began working as a transportation specialist, GS-21

DECISION AND ORDER LARIMER, District Judge. Plaintiff filed this pro se employment discrimination action on November 29, 2004. On May 3, 2005, defendant moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m). In the alternative, defendant requested dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil P

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2007-CA-01385-SCT CHASITY NICOLE SMITH WILBURN v. WILLIAM HAYWOOD WILBURN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/31/2007 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. GLENN ALDERSON COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAFAYETTE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JOHN THOMAS LAMAR, JR. DAVID M. SLOCUM, JR. ATTORNE

FERGUSON, Judge (dissenting): I dissent. While I concurred in United States v Williams, 20 USCMA 47, 42 CMR 239 (1970), on which my brothers base their affirmance in this case, I did so in light of the particular facts of that case. See my separate opinion in Williams. Since I do not find those or any similar facts present in this case, reflecting that the accused was afforded the right