Cases

MOORE, J. |, Patricia Porter appeals a judgment that, condemned her, the successful litigant, to pay court costs in spite of the fact that she was previously granted pauper status. We reverse in part and render. Procedural Background Ms. Porter filed this petition for an Art. 103 divorce in Webster Parish in November 2010. She alleged that she and Mr. Porter had married

OPINION GRABER, Circuit Judge: The California legislature enacted Senate Bill 1172 to ban state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in “sexual orientation change efforts” (“SOCE”) with patients under 18 years of age. Two groups of plaintiffs sought to enjoin enforcement of the law, arguing that SB 1172 violates the First Amendment and infringe

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

930 S.W.2d 748 (1996) STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, et al., Appellants, v. David K. BECKER and Joni Becker, Appellees. No. 13-94-334-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi. August 22, 1996. Rehearing Overruled October 3, 1996. *750 Douglass L. Anderson, Emmett Cole, Jr., Cole, McManus, Cole & Easley,

Memorandum of Decision A jury found defendant Steven Wayne Porter guilty of aggravated burglary under section 76-6-203 of the Code, burglary under section 76-6-202, and theft under section 76-6-404. He appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions in State v. Porter,705 P.2d 1174, 1179

Adkins, J. Battered spouse syndrome is a form of posttraumatic stress disorder that develops in victims of intimate partner violence. Maryland law allows a woman on trial for harming her abuser to present evidence explaining battered spouse syndrome and its psychological effects regardless of whether she was the first aggressor, used excessive force, or failed to retreat. Md. Code (1991, 2013 Repl. Vol.), § 10-916(b) of the Co

Judgment rendered August 28, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 55,845-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** DICKEY PORTER AND DORIS Plaintiffs

705 P.2d 1174 (1985) STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Stephen Wayne PORTER, Defendant and Appellant. No. 20149. Supreme Court of Utah. August 29, 1985. *1176 Edward Brass & Randall Gaither, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant. David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Sandra J. Sjogren, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt

Baylson, District Judge I. Introduction This case involves a most egregious violation of First Amendment rights, in the context of a sheriff's sale. After a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, the Defendants, City of Philadelphia and Edward Chew, moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur, asserting errors in the Court's jury instructions and

[Cite as Porter v. Chait, 2012-Ohio-3696.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98181 BILL PORTER, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES vs.

REASONS FOR ORDER ELIZABETH W. MAGNER, Bankruptcy Judge. 1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Highsteppin’ Productions, L.L.C. (“HSP”) filed suit against Porter, Batiste, Stoltz, L.L.C. (“PBS”) and its individual members, George Porter, Jr. (“Porter”), Brian Stoltz (“Stoltz”), and David Russell Batiste (“Batiste”) on December 29, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Eastern Di

ORDER DAVID HITTNER, District Judge. Pending before the Court is a Motion for Partial Dismissal (Document No. 14) filed by Defendant Porter Hedges, LLC. Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines the motion should be granted. I. BACKGROUND This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff Jeanine V. Rich

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ADAM TURNBULL and DAVID ) ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of ) all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2023-1125-BWD ) ADAM KLEIN, JOEL BROUSSARD, ) DAVID TREADWELL, RICHARD ) BURNETT, RYAN CARROLL, ST

601 S.W.2d 721 (1980) Lorenzo Charles PORTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 59095. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Panel No. 2. July 16, 1980. *722 Edward Gay, Dallas, for appellant. Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Maridell J. Templeton, David C. Schick and Stewart C. Robinson Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL MELVILLE, Jr., No. 21-15999 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01703- v. JGZ DAVID SHINN, Director; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE OPINION STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court

606 F.3d 809 (2010) Melvin PORTER, Appellant v. Rajiv SHAH, Administrator, Usaid, Appellee. No. 09-5167. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued February 18, 2010. Decided June 1, 2010. *811 Anne E. Langford argued the cause for the appellant. David J. Cynamon, Thomas G. Allen, Susan

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 18-3105 __________ JAMES PORTER; MARILYNN SANKOWSKI v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; BARBARA DEELEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA; DARYLL STEWART, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY I

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THEODORE WASHINGTON, No. 05-99009 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. CV-95-02460-JAT DAVID SHINN, Director, Respondent-Appellee. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

NEWMAN, Senior Judge, dissenting: While I concur totally with the majority’s holding that the trial court committed reversible error in denying Porter’s post-trial motion under D.C.Code § 23-110, I emphatically dissent from its decision to remand for an evidentiary hearing on the alleged “plain view” issue. This case was first argued with Judge Kramer as a member of the division. I was drawn t

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THEODORE WASHINGTON, No. 05-99009 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. CV-95-02460-JAT DAVID SHINN, Director, Respondent-Appellee. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding