Cases

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Submitted on Briefs June 26, 2001 PEARL LYNELL POTTS, Individually And Executor of the Estate of Gordon Ray Potts, Sr., Deceased, v. MARY POTTS MAYFORTH and GORDON RAY POTTS, JR., and CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALICE ELIZABETH NELSON Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Carter County No. 244

59 S.W.3d 167 (2001) Pearl Lynell POTTS, Individually And Executor of the Estate of Gordon Ray Potts, Sr., Deceased v. Mary Potts MAYFORTH and Gordon Ray Potts, Jr., and Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, v. Alice Elizabeth Nelson. Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section, at Knoxville. August 9, 2001. Permission to Appeal Denied November 5, 2001.

UPON A REHEARING EN BANC. By opinion dated May 22, 2001, a divided panel of this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See Potts v. Commonwealth, 35 Va.App. 485, 546 S.E.2d 229 (2001). We granted rehearing en banc and stayed the mandate of that decision. Upon rehearing en banc, the stay of this Court’s May 22, 2001 mandate is lifted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed

546 S.E.2d 229 (2001) 35 Va. App. 485 Kevin Michael POTTS, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record No. 2854-99-1. Court of Appeals of Virginia, Chesapeake. May 22, 2001. *230 Theresa B. Berry (Berry, Ermlich, Lomax & Meixel, on brief), for appellant. *231 H. Eliz

BERDON, J., dissenting. I would grant certification to appeal on the following two issues: 1. Whether the constitutional (federal and state) rights of the defendant, Gary Potts, were violated when the jury was instructed on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance that it must assess the “reasonableness” of his action “from the viewpoint of a reasonable man, placed in the defendant’s situation, under the ci

Opinion FOTI, J. The defendant, Gary Potts, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a.1 On appeal, the defendant alleges that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause the death of the victim. He also claims that the

Pfeifer, J., concurring. {¶ 24} I concur in the syllabus, judgment, and opinion of the majority. I write separately to highlight an interesting argument made by the appellant, which was not necessary for the majority to address. {¶ 25} Appellant, attorney John F. Potts, argues that a subpoena issued by the prosecution in a pending criminal case to an attorney representing a criminal defe

408 S.E.2d 256 (1991) Kenneth M. POTTS v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record No. 1861-89-2. Court of Appeals of Virginia. August 6, 1991. *257 R.R. Ryder, Richmond, for appellant. H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee. Present: BAKER, BENTON and DUFF, JJ. DU

[Cite as State v. Potts, 2018-Ohio-540.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 16CA010911 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE NICHALOS POTTS

*611ORDER PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted. LARSEN and McDERMOTT, JJ., dissent.

796 S.W.2d 678 (1990) Elizabeth Ann POTTS, individually and as next of kin of Harold Lamar Potts, Deceased, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. The CELOTEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville. September 10, 1990. *679 W. Mitchell Cramer, Michael Y. Rowland, and Robert B. Williamson (of counsel), for plaintif

MEMORANDUM A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge. Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51) to Defendants Warden Ronnie Holt (“Warden Holt”), Wayne Ryan (“Ryan”), and DeShawn China’s (“China”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 39.) Plaintiff Richard Potts (“Potts”), an inmate at USP Canaan and a pract

703 F.Supp. 672 (1988) Elizabeth Ann POTTS, Individually and as next of kin of Harold Lamar Potts, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. The CELOTEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 3-88-089. United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, N.D. December 6, 1988. W. Mitchell Cramer, Michael Y. Rowland, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff. William Vines, Harry Ogden, Patt

Branch, Judge. Aerius Deshad Potts was tried by a Carroll County jury and convicted of seven counts of aggravated assault, 1 three counts of felony cruelty to children, 2 one count of armed robbery, 3 on

[Cite as State v. Potts, 2016-Ohio-5555.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 5-16-03 v. KEVIN J. POTTS, OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court

PER CURIAM. In this diversity personal injury action, plaintiff, Elizabeth Overberg, appeals from a grant of summary judgment to the defendant, Larry Lusby. 727 F.Supp. 1091 (E.D. Ky.1990). Overberg claimed that during her marriage to Lusby, he intentionally or negligently transmitted to her a sexual disease — condyloma—which resulted in her having to undergo a hysterectomy. Lus

Opinion BEACH, J. The respondent mother, Angela J., appeals 1 from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, to dismiss her motion to revoke the commitment of her minor child, Natalie J. On appeal, Angela J. argues t

790 A.2d 703 (2002) 142 Md. App. 448 Beverly POTTS v. Robert F. POTTS. No. 2833, Sept. Term, 2000. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. February 1, 2002. *705 Kimberly Fleming (Laura V. Bearsch and Love, Fleming, Bearsch & Attanasio, LLC on the brief), Bel Air, for appellant. Paula J. Darrah (W

McCown, J. This is an action for damages to crops caused by defendant’s livestock. The jury returned verdicts for the plaintiff and against the defendant on three causes of action which arose in 1964 and 1966. The verdicts *143were for $78.50, $76.80, and $51.20. The jury also returned a verdict in favor of a third party complainant in the sum of $120. The district co

Although a licensee has no vested interest in his license, it was the intent of the legislature that a license not be revoked without cause, and common-law certiorari is appropriate method to have courts determine question as to whether a license was revoked without just cause. Title 29, Sec. 5, Code of Alabama, as amended. Southall v. Stricos Corporation, 275 Ala. 156,153 So.2d 234; Ott v. Moody, 283 Ala.