Cases

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA19-1083 Filed: 31 December 2020 Pitt County, Nos. 17 CRS 58458–60 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CALVIN LEE MILLER Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 31 October 2018 by Judge Walter H. Godwin, Jr., in Pitt County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 August 2020. Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy A

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) ID No. 1611008842 ) KEVIN D. MILLER, ) ) Defendant. ) Submitted: February 26, 2020 Decided: July 30, 2020 Upon Defendant’s Motio

MEMORANDUM ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT TENNESSEE STATE BANK IS NOT QUALIFIED AS A PETITIONING CREDITOR RICHARD STAIR, JR., Bankruptcy Judge. This contested matter is before the court upon the Motion for Summary Judgment That Tennessee State Bank Is Not Qualified As A Petitioning Creditor (Motion for Summary Judgment) filed on November 9, 2012, by the Debtor, Gerald L. Miller, asking the

MEMORANDUM ON CONTESTED INVOLUNTARY PETITION, MOTION TO DETERMINE VENUE, AND MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RICHARD STAIR, JR., Bankruptcy Judge. Before the court are the following: (1) the contested Involuntary Petition commenced by Tennessee State Bank on September 28, 2012; (2) the Motion of Tennessee State Bank to Determine Venue for the Administration of

692 S.E.2d 677 (2010) MILLER v. The STATE. No. A09A2400. Court of Appeals of Georgia. March 18, 2010. *678 Wayne L. Burnaine, Lawrenceville, for appellant. Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, Karen M. Harris, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. DOYLE, Judge. Following a jury trial, Dirk Elliott Miller

Goff, Justice. Protective orders have sweeping reach in our state. By their terms, these orders endeavor to establish a hedge of protection around one person by restricting the actions or words of another. Thousands of faceless Hoosiers are currently subject to or shielded by protective orders like the one at the center of this case. Because violating a protective order amounts to a cri

PER CURIAM. *4LeShannon Jerome Shelly seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Shelly v. State , 199 So.3d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), on the basis that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decis

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 17, 2013 KENNETH MILLER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2007-D-3535 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge No. M2012-01781-CCA-R3-PC - Filed May 20, 2013 The petitioner, Kenneth Miller, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief

OPINION Opinion By Justice WRIGHT. Shelly Miller Goolsby and James Stephen Miller III appeal the probate judge’s order finding Goolsby lacks standing in this guardianship proceeding. In three issues, Goolsby and Miller contend the probate judge erred by determining Goolsby lacked standing to participate in the guardianship proceeding. We agree with Goolsby that the probate judge erred by dete

202 S.W.3d 614 (2006) PAM MILLER, As Personal Representative of the Estate of OCIE BIRKHEAD, and PAM MILLER, Individually, Respondents, v. LEVERING REGIONAL HEALTH CARE CENTER, LLC, and RELIANT CARE MANAGEMENT Co., LLC, Appellants. No. ED 86933 Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two July 11, 2006 Stephen Michael Strum, Stacey George Sifton, Sandbe

513 S.E.2d 147 (1998) 204 W.Va. 374 STATE of West Virginia, Appellee, v. Penny Gail MILLER, Appellant. No. 25168. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted November 12, 1998. Decided December 14, 1998. *149 Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Esq., Attorney General, Allen H. Loughry, II, Es

Order GRAY H. MILLER, District Judge. Pending before the court is a motion for partial summary judgment filed by relators John King and Tammy Drummond (the “Re-lators”). Dkt. 300. After considering the motion, the response, defendant Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“SPI”) notice clarifying its invocation of certain affirmative defenses, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motion shou

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-13-00096-CR DON CLAYTON COOKSEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 5th District Court Bowie County,

Opinion of the Court COX, Judge: This appeal concerns admissibility of statements made by appellant to two witnesses: a San Diego County, California, child-protective-service investigator and a psychologist appointed by the San Diego County Juvenile Court.1 Before taking the statements, neither witness advised appellant of his rights under Article 31, Uniform Code o

ACCEPTED 12-15-00005CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 1/14/2015 10:02:33 AM

OPINION PER CURIAM. OVERVIEW Nicholas Johnson (“Nicholas”), by and through his mother, Julie Johnson, appeals the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction sought by them to modify the “stay put” order entered by the California Special Education Hearing Office (“Hearing Office”). Nicholas argues that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400-9

Order GRAY H. MILLER, District Judge. Pending before the court are (1) defendants Solvay America Inc. (“SAI”) and Solvay North America LLC’s (“SNA”) motion to dismiss relators John King and Jane Doe’s (collectively, “Relators”) fourth amended complaint (“4AC”) (Dkt. 121); and (2) defendant Abbott Products Inc.’s, which was formerly known as Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“SPI”), motion to dismiss Relators’ 4AC

Contract damages; expectation damages; cost of cover; reasonableness of mitigation; foreseeability; causation of damages. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON CLAIMS OF CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT CHRISTINE O.C. MILLER, Judge. This case, before the court on remand from the United States Court of Appeal

Contract damages; expectation damages; cost of cover; reasonableness of mitigation; foreseeability; causation of damages. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON CLAIMS OF STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT CHRISTINE O.C. MILLER, Judge. This case, before the court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal C

No. 123,063 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS KANSAS FIRE AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT, a Kansas corporation, HAL G. RICHARDSON d/b/a BUENO FOOD BRAND, TOPEKA VINYL TOP, and MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM, Appellants/Cross-appellees, v. CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS,