Cases

385 Mich. 596 (1971) 189 N.W.2d 41 PEOPLE v. FRAZIER WALKER No. 15 June Term 1971, Docket No. 52,921. Supreme Court of Michigan. Decided August 27, 1971. *597 Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, and Don

LEWIS, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an order denying writ of habeas corpus to 41 petitioners, appellants here, who allege that they were unlawfully restrained of their liberty by the Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. It appears from the petition and exhibits attached that they were all tried by general court-martial at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, in December, 1917, for violations of the 64th, 6

24 Mich. App. 360 (1970) 180 N.W.2d 193 PEOPLE v. FRAZIER WALKER Docket No. 8,546. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided June 3, 1970. Leave to appeal granted September 22, 1970. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, Donald A.

Melton Justice. Elisha Franklin (“Wife”) and Elijah Franklin (“Husband”) were divorced pursuant to a June 3, 2011, Final Decree. The parties have three minor children together, and the trial court awarded primary *205custody to Husband and visitation rights to Wife. The trial court further ordered Wife to pay $1,518 per month in child support (based on a finding that

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.E. 65) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (D.E. 71) JOAN A. LENARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def. Motion,” D.E. 65), filed December 1, 2014. Plaintiff filed a Response on December 15, 2014 (“Pla. Response,” D.E. 86), to which Defendant filed a R

[Cite as State v. Wolters, 2022-Ohio-538.] COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. John W. Wise,

OPINION Newell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which -Hervey, Alcala, Richardson, Yeary, Keel, and Walker, JJ., joined. Resident assistants searched the dorm room of Mikenzie Renee Rodriguez, found drugs, and called their director, who in turn called the police. The police then entered the room and seized the drugs. Rodriguez was indicted for possession of a controlled substance. The

83 F.Supp. 940 (1948) HAYES v. HUNTER, Warden. FRAZIER v. HUNTER, Warden. Nos. 1140, 1223. United States District Court D. Kansas. First Division. October 25, 1948. *941 Homer Davis, of Leavenworth, Kan., for petitioner Hayes. Elisha Scott and Charles Scott, both of Topeka, Kan., for petitioner Frazier.

OPINION RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the district court’s award of summary judgment to the state of Michigan in a putative class action case that challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions of the State’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The plaintiff represents one of two proposed classes of individuals who were

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0269p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellant, - JOHN DOE, XIV,

[J-43-2015] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 701 CAP : Appellee : Appeal from the Order entered on : 07/10/2014 in the Court of Common

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 17, 2013 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANGELA M. GREENE Appeal from the Circuit Court for McMinn County No. 12-CR-4 Amy F. Reedy, Judge No. E2013-00475-CCA-R3-CD - Filed July 10, 2014 The Defendant, Angela M. Greene, was convicted by a McMinn County Circuit Court jury of

OPINION LINDSAY, District Judge. Defendants Edward Murphy, John Noonan, Ian Tink, Michael Fair and Thomas DaSilva object to a Report and Recommendation of a magistrate judge, which recommended that this court deny their motion for summary judgment. For the reasons which follow, the court declines to accept the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, and grants the

185 Kan. 523 (1959) 345 P.2d 1028 In the Matter of the Estate of Maggie Taylor, also known as Margaret E. Taylor, Deceased. (CHARLEY TAYLOR, Appellant, v. ELISHA SCOTT, Executor, Appellee.) No. 41,472 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed November 7, 1959. *524 Elmer C. Jackson, Jr., of Kansas

182 Kan. 33 (1957) 318 P.2d 1007 DON GRACE, Appellee, v. ELIZABETH MARTIN, Appellant. No. 40,497 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed December 7, 1957. Edward Curry, Elisha Scott, Charles S. Scott, and John J. Scott, all of Topeka, were on the briefs for the appellant. Jack A. Quinlan, of Topeka, argued the cause

Truly, J., delivered the opinion of the court. Section 3101, Code 1892, provides that chancery courts in which suits for partition are instituted shall have power, in order to prevent multiplicity of suits, to “adjust the equities between and determine all claims of the several co-tenants.” It was proper, therefore, for the court in the instant case to inquire into and decide all controverted equities, and ma

Davis, J. This is an action for specific performance founded upon a covenant in a lease which gives the tenant, who is the plaintiff here, an option to purchase the demised premises for $60,000. By an instrument made the 17th day of May, 1901, Jane M. Janes, now deceased, leased to plaintiff certain premises in the city of New York on the southerly side of Forty-second street, distant about eig'hty feet westerly from Seventh ave

99 F.Supp. 385 (1951) GLOVER et al. v. McFADDIN et al. Civ. A. No. 1511. United States District Court E. D. Texas, Beaumont Division. April 23, 1951. *386 *387 Herman R. Parker, C. Howard Bozeman, Francke Sandford and Hugh C. Simpson, all of Knoxville, Tenn., E. Garland Brown, Corpus Christi,

Holcomb, J. From a ruling of the trial court sustaining a demurrer to the amended petition of the plaintiff and entry of judgment of dismissal of this action, he prosecutes error proceedings in this court. The petition of the plaintiff, so far as it is necessary to refer in the consideration of the points presented to us for decision, alleges in substance, omitting legal verbiage, that one Dolan was seeking to engage in the

Curia, per Harper, Ch. The principal ground relied upon in this case is either, that the Act of 1841 does not apply to the case, or, that the Act itself is invalid. I do not find the ground for the former opinion. The Act declares, in general terms, that every bequest directing slaves tobe carried out of the State, with a view to their emancipation, shall be void. This, in plain and explicit terms, applies to ever