Cases

Robert Porter, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's judgment of conviction. The parties have waived oral argument, and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). In 2016, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Porter with three counts of theft concerning programs receiving federal funds, in violation of

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 18a0061p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 447 This court's opinion of April 17, 2009, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor. Ralph Eustace and Martha Haislip appeal from a judgment entered by the Madison Circuit Court. We affirm the judgment in part and dismiss the appeal in part. Facts and Procedural History

Affirmed.

This is an action, instituted by the administrator of Britton Vaughan, one creditor of Britton Vaughan and one who claims a contract of lease with said administrator, to have declared null and void a deed to Sallie Porter from a commissioner appointed in a special proceeding brought by the heirs at law of the said Britton Vaughan to sell his real estate for partition among said heirs, and also to cancel a certain deed of trust subsequently given by said Sallie Porter upon the land described i

FORET, Judge. This is, a workmen’s compensation case arising out of an alleged accident occurring *1217on the 28th day of April, 1976. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff for total and permanent disability, and for attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,000.00 for the arbitrary and capricious failure of defendants to pay compensation benefits to th

424 F.Supp.2d 616 (2004) Ivy SILBERSTEIN, d/b/a Ivy Supersonic, Plaintiff, v. FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Blue Sky Studios, Inc.; John Does 1 through 10; Jakks Pacific, Inc.; Ubi Soft Entertainment, Inc.; Harpercollins Publishers, Inc.; and Xyz Corporations 1 through 1500, Defendants. No. 02 Civ. 1131(RJH). United States District Court, S.D. New York.<

MEMORANDUM RULING JAMES T. TRIMBLE, JR., District Judge. Before the court is “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Stay, Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)” (R. # 6) wherein Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC (erroneously named as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) (“Wal-Mart”) seeks to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims for failure to exhaust administrative

ORDER EDENFIELD, District Judge. Before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against defendant Amchem Products, Inc. (Amchem). I. Background This case, like the scores of other asbestos cases brought by plaintiff's counsel, began with a shotgun blast of allegations against some twenty-six defendants. Thereafter, the action fit into a litigation

[Cite as Dodd v. Croskey, 2013-Ohio-4257.] STATE OF OHIO, HARRISON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT PHILLIP DODD, et al., ) ) CASE NO. 12 HA 6 PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ) ) VS. ) OPINION

Appeal from the granting of a motion for summary judgment filed by the bank. The bank's motion challenged the wording in a 1976 deed from Appellant and her spouse to her son, Joe Wade Haskins, asserting that the language constituted an unreasonable restraint on alienation and was void as a matter of law. The bank argued that it was a direct restraint. There is only one appellant and one appellee in this appeal. The appeal was limited in scope by Appellant. The limitation of appeal fil

CRIST, Judge. Appellants appeal from a decree of the trial court ruling respondents had gained title to a parcel of land by adverse possession of their precedessor in title, a co-tenant. We affirm. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss for violations of Rule 84.04. Rule 84.04(b) requires a factual statement of the case showing jurisdiction. Presentment of these facts is appellants’ first opportunity to appri

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 873 OPINION This case is a will contest. Viola Conner Trawick, at age ninety-two, executed a self-proving will March 11, 1998, naming her sister's daughter, Reva Risinger, as independent executor and as sole beneficiary of her estate. Trawick died May 1, 2000. The will was admitted to probate M

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-04-00083-CV ___________________

722 F.Supp. 372 (1989) James BRONSTON, Marie Ecton, Bonnie Jeffers, and Eula Hill, Plaintiffs, v. Jack KEMP, Secretary, Department of Housing & Urban Development, Defendant. Civ. No. C-1-88-942. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D. October 4, 1989. *373 Sue Livensparger, Edward Stokan, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff

Armond Billey, an enrolled Mississippi Choctaw Indian of the full blood, No. 352, died March 26, 1932, while a resident of Bryan county, Okla. He had been married, but was divorced at the time of his death, and left surviving him as his sole and only heir at law, J.T. Billey, a minor son. September 24, 1932, Jesse Roberts filed a petition for the probate of an instrument dated February 20, 1932, alleged to be the last will and testament of the decedent, and said instrument reads, in pa

McDONALD, Justice. We have accepted jurisdiction to resolve conflict created by Ray v. State, 374 So.2d 1002 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), and Causey v. State, 307 So.2d 197 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. (1972). The issue to be determined is whether a defendant convicted of a crime for which he was not charged, but which was submitted to the jury as a lesser included offense when in fact it was not

On the 1st day of July, 1922, the plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, filed their suit in the district court of Okfuskee county, against the defendants in error, defendants below, to enforce the specific performance of a contract. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants, as they were designated in the trial court. On the 31st day of December, 1921, the defendant Eula M. Lewis executed an oil and gas lease to the plaintiffs upon 80 acres of land

Case: 17-14322 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 Page: 1 of 69 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT __________________________ No. 17-14322 __________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cv-1267-WBH VIRGIL DELANO PRESNELL,

Opinion by Orlady, J., The judgment which the court below refused to open was entered against the lessee who had signed and sealed it, and who was charged with the performance of the covenants in the lease for the premises which she occupied. The lease supporting the judgment provided for a- tenancy from month to month, and possession of the premises was taken at the beginning of the term. Th