Cases

*303 LOGAN, Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R. App.P.

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON MEMORANDUM ORDER Appellate case name: In re J.D. and A.R.M. Appellate case number: 01-19-00769-CV Trial court case number: 2018-35622 Trial court: 507th District Court of Harris County Relators, Deanna Marshall and Joshua Marshall, filed a petition for writ of mandamus with respect to the trial court’s order denying their

Opinion issued February 11, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00769-CV ——————————— IN RE J.D. AND A.R.M., Relators Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

FILED 05/24/2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE aaa AT KNOXVILLE Appellate Courts April 17, 2019 Session ERIC LOVETT ET AL. Vv. MARSHALL STEVEN COLE, JR. ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Roane County No. 2016-81 Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor No, E2018-00719-COA-R3-CV AND RALPH SALAS ET AL. Vv. MARSHALL STEVEN COLE, JR." Appeal from the Chancery Court for Roane County No. 2016-133 Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor No. E2018-01082-COA-R3-CV Ei

FILED 05/24/2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE Clerk of the AT KNOXVILLE Appellate Courts

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION *Page 3 {¶ 1} Pro se plaintiff Bertha Marshall appeals from the judgment of the probate court entered in the will contest action brought by Marshall and other siblings of the decedent Paul Scalf. Plaintiff and the other siblings sought to set aside a will naming decedent's nephew Eric Scalf as the primary beneficiary and to set aside a joint and survivorship quitclaim

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 8, 2013 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BRIAN MARSHALL KEYS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County No. 20889 Robert L. Holloway, Judge ________________________________________ No. M2012-02245-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 29, 2014 _____________

Williams v J. Luke Constr. Co., LLC (2019 NY Slip Op 03431) Williams v J. Luke Constr. Co., LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 03431 Decided on May 2, 2019 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting

[Cite as In re J.M. v. A.M., 2022-Ohio-1092.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re: J.M., : Petitioner-Appellee, : No. 19AP-832 v. : (C.P.C. No. 16DR-3832) A.M.,

Lisa Schlarb appeals the trial court's partial summary judgment for Davis Lee and Danny Yancey, the defendants in an action filed by Schlarb in the Marshall Circuit Court. We dismiss the appeal. In February 2003, Lee and Yancey, the owners of Job Source, L.L.C., terminated Schlarb's employment with that company. On December 14, 2004, Schlarb sued Lee and Yancey, stating two counts in her complaint. In one count, Schlarb claimed to have an ownership interest in Job Source, which

191 S.W.3d 85 (2006) Deanna VINSON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Ray VINSON, Jr., Defendant/Respondent. No. ED 85854. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five. May 16, 2006. *86 Michael A. Gross, Joseph F. Yeckel, St. Louis, MO, for appellant. Edward J. Dowd, James F. Bennett, K. Lee Marshall, St. Louis, MO, J

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DEBORAH A. BATTS, District Judge. Plaintiff Marshall R. Mazyck (“Plaintiff’ or “Mazyck”), an African-American male, together with eight African-American plaintiffs and one Hispanic plaintiff, all of whom are current or former employees of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA” or “Defendant”) Police Department (“MTA PD”), commenced this action against the MTA and four M

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 97-CT-00504-SCT DEANNA WADE v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/04/97 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAMAR PICKARD COURT FROM WHICH CLAIBORNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPEALED: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: TRAVIS BUCKLEY ROBER

882 P.2d 1115 (1994) 130 Or. App. 507 In the Matter of the Compensation of Deanna F. Marshall, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION and Dee's Beauty Nook, Petitioners, v. Deanna F. MARSHALL, Respondent. 92-09708; CA A81381. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted August 18, 1994. Decided October 5, 1994. Review Denied

525 F.3d 709 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lei SHI, Defendant-Appellant. No. 06-10389. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted November 6, 2007. Filed April 24, 2008. *717 DeAnna S. Dotson, Esq., Kapolei, HI, argued the cause for the defendant-appellant and fi

This case arises from an order of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's complaint alleging medical malpractice because of plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and dismissing, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff's amendment to the complaint because it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, N.C.G.S. §1-15(c) (1999). Kendra Thigpen

166 F.Supp.2d 210 (2001) Lou Ann MERKLE, Plaintiff, v. UPPER DUBLIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Upper Dublin Township Police Department, Margaret Thomas, Dr. Clair Brown, Jr. and Detective Jack Hahn, Defendants. No. Civ.A. 98-3703. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. April 9, 2001. *211 A. Martin Herring, A. Martin Herring &

643 F.Supp.2d 1256 (2009) Robin VERNON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. No. C08-1516Z. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. July 16, 2009. *1260 Beth E. Terrell, Toby James Marshall, Terrell Marshall & Daudt PLLC, Kimberlee L. Gunning, Law Office of Ki

MEMORANDUM OPINION AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge Plaintiff Timothy D. Naegele brought this diversity action against Deanna J. Alb-ers and Raymond H. Albers (“the Albers defendants”), former defendant Lloyd J. Michaelson, 1 and unnamed individuals “Does 1-10” (“the

BIGGS, Judge dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Assuming I agreed with the majority in this case, that a plaintiff can avail himself of a Rule 15 amendment to cure defective medical malpractice complaints lacking 9(J) certification, the issue presented is whether, on the facts of this case, a denial of Rule 15 relief is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. I believe it is not. The rules