Cases

ZAGER, Justice. This case requires us to determine whether hugs between a school employee and a student can constitute prohibited "sexual conduct" under Iowa Code section 709.15(3)( a ) (2015). Wickes appeals his conviction on one count of sexual exploitation by a school employee under Iowa Code sections 709.15(3)( a )(1) and 709.15(5)(

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 16–1684 Filed March 30, 2018 STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. BRADLEY ELROY WICKES, Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Stuart Werling, Judge. Defendant challenges his conviction for sexual exploitation by a school employee. AFFIRMED. Eric S. Mail and Eric D. Puryear of Puryear Law P.C., Davenport, for appellant.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Sergeant, J. The first and most material question in this case, is, whether the legacy claimed by the plaintiff is a charge upon the land devised; for if it be not, then the proceedings in the Orphans’ Court, to recover it by a sale of the land, under the Act of February 1834, were irregular; and the proper remedy was by personal actions against the devisees. To make

11th Court of Appeals Eastland, Texas Opinion

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge I. Introduction Unwired Planet has sued Apple for patent infringement. Unwiréd asserts claims from four different patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,317,831 ('831 patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,532,446 ('446 patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,646,260 ('260 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,321,092 ('092 patent). The parties have cross-mo

Ball v . Ripley CV-04-183-PB 1/25/06 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Ball et a l . v. Case N o . 04-cv-183-PB Opinion N o . 2006 DNH 015 Ripley et a l . ORDER Plaintiffs William Ball, Elroy Reed, and Barbara Buckley (“participant plaintiffs”) are former employees of Troy Mills, In

894 P.2d 47 (1995) Norton BAIN and The Bain Corporation, a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. PIONEER PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a Colorado limited liability company; Stum Enterprises, a Colorado general partnership; Elroy E. Stum; Merlyn E. Stum, individually and as trustee for Tammy Lynn Stum Trust, Gretchen Ann Stum Trust, Jennifer Dawn Stum Trust, Heidie Sue Stum Trust, Valerie Lou Stum T

MURRAY, Chief Judge. These actions, all involving similar issues, are pending before the court on various motions, and objections to interrogatories. The plaintiff in each case has filed a motion to modify pretrial orders entered on October 23, 1963; and defendants have pending Motions for Bonds for Costs, Motions for Summary Judgment and objections to plaintiffs’ interrogatories. All of the pending motions and objections ha

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Eastern Investigative Bureau, Inc., and Michael Stone, and the defendant Naomi Henry separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), entered August 20, 1998, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ordered that

President. This suit is brought on three several promissory notes, executed by Milton G-oodeuow to Rice, ge6¿ & q0> an¿ endorsed by Rice, as agent of and partner -n yie comparLy} to Rice & Reed. No question is made but what the notes were given for good and valuable considerations, and remain unpaid; nor is it suggested, but that the transfer of these notes to Rice & Reed was fair and bona fide: objections are made to

GARY M. GAERTNER, Judge. Appellant, the Attorney General for the State of Missouri (“Attorney General”), appeals from an order of the Washington County Circuit Court permitting respondent, Elroy Preston (“defendant”), to inspect and copy any and all records pertaining to defendant compiled and maintained by the Department of Corrections and Human Resources (“DOC”). We quash the order. Defendant is current

BALDWIN, Judge. Frilette and Weisz (Frilette et al.) appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding Kimberlin and Gladrow (Kimberlin et al.) priority as to the two counts in interference No. 92,280, involving Kimberlin et al. patent No. 2,971,903 1

OPINION (January 14, 2005) In this interlocutory appeal filed by the United States we must interpret for the first time for this court the meaning of “testimonial evidence” as used in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d

*636OPINION HARVEY A. HOLTAN, Judge. Appellant R.B. (putative father) challenges the trial court’s determination that he lacks standing to bring a paternity action. Appellant C.M.A. challenges the trial court’s denial of her request for blood tests under Minn. Stat. §§ 257.55, 257.57, on grounds that it is in her best interests to know who her biologi

HENRY, Circuit Judge. ElRoy Tillman appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from his state court conviction for first-degree murder in the State of Utah and the resulting death sentence. Claiming his right to Due Process was violated, Mr. Tillman presents six grounds on which habeas relief may be pr

395 F.3d 173 UNITED STATES of America, Appellantv.Craig M. HENDRICKS; Russell Robinson Elroy Dowe; Daniel Fleming; Ranney Laronde; Andy Antoine; Rudolph Clark; Rafael Cintron; Kalisha Martin; Jacquelyn Carr. No. 04-2465. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued December 16, 2004. Filed January 14, 2005.

BROKAW, J. The defendant Elroy Wingett was the owner of the machine driven by the defendants but it was driven by the other-defendant Victor C. Reed. The defendants both deny liability upon the ground that the plaintiff was negligent in leaving the right hand side of the road and going over to the left upon the approach of their vehicle. The question arises in the mind of the court as to whether the circumstances as shown in

Case Number: 11-01-00270-CV 11/13/2003 Case stored in record room 10/15/2003 Notice sent to Court of Appeals 08/07/2003 Petition for Review disposed proceeding denied 07/08/2003 Case forwarded to Court 07/07/2003 Response to Petition for Review waived 06/27/2003 Response to Petition for Review waived 06/04/2003 Petition for Review filed 06/04/2003 Appendix Filed 05/01/2003 M/E/T to file petition for review filed 05/01/2003 M/E/T to file petition for review disposed Granted [EDITORS' NOTE: THI

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM C. BRYSON, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE. In this patent infringement action, defendant Safeway, Inc., has moved for summary judgment of invalidity on the ground that the asserted claims of Kroy’s patent are directed to ineligible subject matter. Dkt. No. 140. The Court GRANTS the motion. ' I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Kroy IP Hol

536 N.W.2d 634 (1995) R.B., Appellant (CX-95-365), Respondent (CX-95-527), v. C.S., Norman County Social Services Board, Respondents, Elroy Hanson, as Guardian Ad Litem of C.M.A., a minor, Respondent (CX-95-365), Appellant (CX-95-527). Nos. CX-95-365, CX-95-527. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. August 29, 1995. *635 Galen J. Va