Cases

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert H. Dixon appeals the district court’s order denying him leave to file an amended complaint after the action had already been dismissed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert H. Dixon appeals the district court’s order denying him leave to file an amended complaint after the action had already been dismissed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

738 F.2d 429 Dixonv.Mitchell 83-6593 United States Court of Appeals,Fourth Circuit. 7/6/84 1 E.D.Va. DISMISSED

Order affirmed. WATKINS, P. J., and SPAETH, J., dissent.

Denied Unpublished

ORDER BRITT, District Judge. This matter is before the court on motion by plaintiff seeking an order of the court directing defendants to allow his counsel to have a “contact” visit with plaintiff. The matter has been fully briefed and is ready for ruling. This is a civil rights action instituted by plaintiff, an inmate in the North Carolina Department of Corrections, against de

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 30, 2003 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HENRY MITCHELL DIXON Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County No. S44,157 & S44,159 Phyllis H. Miller, Judge No. E2002-00731-CCA-R3-CD October 22, 2003 A Sullivan County Jur

DIXON, JUDGE: Appellants, Behram Tavadia and Tavadia Enterprises, Inc. (collectively "Tavadia"), appeal from an opinion and order of the Jefferson Circuit Court, following a bench trial finding in favor of Appellee, Sheri Mitchell, and dismissing Tavadia's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation and conversion of company assets, forgery, and fraud. In April 2013, Mitchell started One Sustainable Method

GROSS, J. Charged with attempted second degree murder, kidnapping, and criminal mischief, Alan Dixon was convicted of aggravated battery causing serious bodily injury after a jury trial. We reverse because the trial court erroneously excluded evidence that was admissible either as non-hearsay or as an exception to the rule against hearsay. The State’s Evidence The victim, an adu

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent, ) WD81592 v. ) ) OPINION FILED:

ORDER J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge. During his military service in Iraq, Kenneth R. Dixon (“Plaintiff’) was rendered a paraplegic, a condition that has required him to seek extensive care with the Charlie Norwood Veterans Affairs Medical Center (“VAMC”) in Augusta, Georgia. After seeking outside medical assistance for an infection in his left hip, Plaintiff became aware that an old gauze sponge was left in

677 S.E.2d 76 (2009) DIXON v. The STATE. Holodick v. The State. Nos. S09A0222, S09A0223. Supreme Court of Georgia. April 28, 2009. *78 David C. Butler, Marietta, for appellant (case no. S09A0222). Mitchell D. Durham, Marietta, for appellant (case no. S09A0223). Patrick H. Head, Dist. Atty., Dana J. Norma

BATTAGLIA, J., dissenting, which BELL, C.J., joins. I respectfully dissent and would affirm the excellent analysis and decision of the Court of Special Appeals, Dixon v. Ford Motor Company, 206 Md.App. 180, 47 A.3d 1038 (2012).

[¶ 1] Mitchell Holbach appeals from an order dismissing a temporary disorderly conduct restraining order Holbach had petitioned for against Joy Dixon. We affirm. I [¶ 2] Holbach filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order with the district court in September 2006. The petition alleged Dixon had "a long history of unbecoming conduct towards [Holbach]," including threats, obscene letters, and stalking behavior. The petition specifically alleged D

MATRICCIANI, J. On July 1, 2008, Joan Dixon and her husband, Bernard Dixon, brought suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against corporations involved in the manufacturing and distribution of products containing asbestos, including Ford Motor Company, the Georgia-Pacific Corporation (“GP”), Honeywell International, Inc., and the Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”). Following Mrs. Dixon’s death from pleural mesothelioma,

MEMORANDUM OPINION EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge. Pending before the Court is defendant Vernard Mitchell’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because it appeared to the Court that Mr. Mitchell raised arguments for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the Court ordered the Go

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) DIXON V. DIXON NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). WILLIAM J. DIXON, JR., APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, V.

TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge. Mary Hill Mitchell (“plaintiff’) appeals the trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of M. Lewis Construction, Inc. (“Lewis Construction”). For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the trial court order. The facts and procedural history pertinent to the instant appeal are as follows: In November 1995, Mitchell’s Formal Wear, Inc. (“Mitchell’s Formal Wear”) entered int

¶ 35. With respect for the majority's reasoning as to why Dixon should not have been entitled to an instruction on the lesser-included offense of possession, nevertheless, I must dissent. If ever there was a case meriting such an instruction, this is it. The majority, in its denial of the instruction, has in essence concluded that a defendant is not entitled to an instruction for a lesser-included offense where he puts on no witnesses or does not himself testify on behalf of his defen

SILER, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting. I concur in the conclusions by the majority that there were no errors in the convictions in this case. However, I respectfully dissent from the conclusion that Haliym was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of sentencing. Thus, I would affirm the district court’s denial of the writ in full. <