Cases

02/21/2020 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs November 5, 2019 EDWARD LEE HOOD, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Henderson County No. 08059-3 Kyle Atkins, Judge ___________________________________

05/09/2018 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2018 EDWARD HOOD, II v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Henderson County No. 08059-3 Kyle Atkins, Judge ___________________________________

Funke, J. **209 *884 Edward Hood appeals from his convictions for motor vehicle homicide, manslaughter, driving under the influence of alcohol causing serious bodily injury, and refusal to submit

41 So.3d 973 (2010) Manley J. HOOD, Appellant, v. Karen T. HOOD, Appellee. No. 5D09-593. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. July 30, 2010. Marcia K. Lippincott, of Marcia K. Lippincott, P.A., Lake Mary, for Appellant. Shannon McLin Carlyle, and Christopher V. Carlyle, of The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, The Villages, for Appellee. MONA

Blackwell, Justice. James Hood was tried by a Clarke County jury, convicted of murder and several other crimes, and sentenced for the murder to a term of imprisonment for life with the possibility of parole. The State appeals, contending that Hood instead should have been sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole. The problem is, Hood filed a timely mo

ON MOTION TO AMEND MANDATE TO REFLECT OPINION OF THE COURT DICKINSON, Presiding Justice, for the Court: ¶ 1. The Auditor’s unopposed Motion to Amend Mandate to Reflect Opinion of the Court is granted. The prior opinions are withdrawn and these opinions are substituted therefor. ¶ 2. A corporation settled a lawsuit by agreeing to pay the State of Mississippi $50

Carlton W. Reeves, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *725Federal courts "have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.

5 So.3d 819 (2008) Carl HOOD v. Mark M. COTTER, M.D. Nos. 2008-C-0215, 2008-C-0237. Supreme Court of Louisiana. December 2, 2008. Rehearing Denied January 30, 2009. *820 Milling, Benson, Woodward, Normand Francis Pizza, New Orleans, for applicant in 2008-C-0215. Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blanche, Balhoff &

MEMORANDUM * Notwithstanding petitioner Brett Sorenson’s ineligibility for parole under his original sentence and 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (1987), he was properly released under 18 U.S.C. § 4163 upon the expiration of his term less good time credits and accordingly “deemed as if released on parole” under 18 U.S.C. § 4164. He therefore remained while on release under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Parole Commissio

MEMORANDUM ** Donald Edward Breen appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) denial of his request for early release, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 3621(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We review a district court’s denial of a § 2241 petition de novo, see Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2000), and we a

242 F.Supp.2d 811 (2002) Craig Martin WOLFF, Plaintiff, v. Robert A. HOOD, Lt. Sales, Lt. Huff, Correctional Officer Edwards, Correctional Officer Van Dusen, and Correctional Officer C. Simmons, Defendants. No. CIV.01-916-BR. United States District Court, D. Oregon. September 27, 2002. *814 Craig Martin Wolff, Federal Correction

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) STATE V. HOOD 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). STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, V.

06/07/2017 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 11, 2017 EDWARD HOOD, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Henderson County No. 08059-3 Kyle Atkins, Judge ___________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Jackson New Media, Inc. (“New Media”)’s motion for leave to intervene in this action for purposes of seeking an order allowing the unsealing of certain court documents, or alternatively, for an order requiring the original parties to appear and show cause why the settlement agreement should not be un

Opinion issued March 7, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-11-00014-CV ——————————— HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellants V. EDWARD A. AND NORMA KERR, PATTIE ACKERM

Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District In Division MARK EDWARD HOOD, ) ) Petitioner-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SD38450 ) DIRECTOR OF REVENUE,

BEEZER, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in the judgment of the court reversing the district court and remanding. I write separately to observe a tension in circuit law which may affect petitioners’ ability to ultimately obtain habeas relief. Petitioners seek to invalidate the 1997 interim regulation and program statements upon which the Bureau of Prisons (“Bureau”) relied to deny th

ORDER PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction by a jury of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to life imprisonment. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts

*********** Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission affirms, with minor modifications, the Decision and Order of the Deputy Commissioner as follows: The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following which were entered into by the parties p

OPINION JOSEPH M. HOOD, District Judge. Defendants appeal the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE and REMAND. I. Factual History It is axiomatic that “a defendant seeking to take an interlocutory app