Cases

Cite as 2023 Ark. 156 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered: October 26, 2023 IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS FOR CIRCUIT COURTS PER CURIAM Administrative plans have been submitted by all judicial circuits. The court has carefully considered each plan and, upon review, believes these plans generally meet the requirements of Administrative Order No

Cite as 2022 Ark. 98 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered May 5, 2022 IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS FOR CIRCUIT COURTS PER CURIAM Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 14, amendments to currently approved circuit court administrative plans have been submitted by the Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Eleventh-West Circuit, Thirteenth Circui

Cite as 2022 Ark. 15 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered: January 27, 2022 IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS FOR CIRCUIT COURTS PER CURIAM Administrative Order No. 14 requires an administrative plan to facilitate the best use of available judicial and support resources within each district so that cases will be resolved in an efficient an

Cite as 2019 Ark. 397 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered December 12, 2019 IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS FOR CIRCUIT COURTS PER CURIAM Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 14, administrative plans have been submitted by all judicial circuits. The administrative plans for circuit courts that have been approved, as submitted, are as fol

Cite as 2023 Ark. 115 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered June 22, 2023 IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS FOR CIRCUIT COURTS AND DISTRICT COURTS PER CURIAM Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 14 and Administrative Order No. 18, amendments to currently approved administrative plans have been submitted by the Fifth Circuit and the Thirty-Fi

Cite as 2025 Ark. 218 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered: December 11, 2025 IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS FOR CIRCUIT COURTS PER CURIAM Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 14, administrative plans have been submitted by all judicial circuits except the Seventh Circuit. The court has carefully considered each plan and, upon review, beli

Cite as 2022 Ark. 64 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered March 17, 2022 IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS FOR JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS PER CURIAM Pursuant to Administrative Orders Nos. 14 and 18, administrative plans have been submitted by all judicial circuits and all judicial districts. Today we approve

Mary R. Russell, Judge This-case is'a petition for review of a decision by the Judicial Finance Commission and concerns the reasonableness of the 45th Judicial Circuit Court’s (“45th Circuit”) 2016 budget as submitted to the Lincoln County Commission (“County Commission”). The Judicial Finance Com*358mission found $26,525 of the total requested budget estimate for att

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 30-JUL-2025 06:09 AM Dkt. 68 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 22, 2022 Decided December 23, 2022 No. 21-1182 CHRISTOPHER GARVEY, PETITIONER v. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, RESPONDENT MORGAN STANLEY, INTERVENOR On

[Cite as Branson v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 2025-Ohio-4396.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO KELLE G. BRANSON, Executor of the : APPEAL NO. C-240558 Estate of Charles Branson, TRIAL NO. A-2200479 : Plaintiff-Appellant, : vs.

OPINION LAMBERT, J., JUDGE: Shelley Netherwood, Raymond Nether-wood, and Ama Netherwood (collectively, the Netherwoods) have appealed from the September 11, 2015, opinion and order of the Jefferson Circuit Court dismissing their claims against Fifth Third Bank related to a garnishment on their bank accounts. Having considered the record and the parties’ arguments in their respective briefs, we affirm.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. *269This putative class action concerns defendant Fifth Third Bank's "Early Access" cash advance loan program, a short-term lending option the bank offered to certain customers who held eligible checking accounts with it. Fifth Third, as both lender and bank, had direct access to borrowers' checking accounts. It deposite

[Cite as Hillier v. Fifth Third Bank, 2020-Ohio-3679.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MIAMI COUNTY JAMES L. HILLIER, INDIVIDUALLY : AND AS EXECUTOR OF LESLIE R. : HILLIER’S ESTATE : Appellate Case No. 2019-CA-21 :

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 22-OCT-2020 07:58 AM Dkt. 29 MO

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered March 14, 2016, which denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff’s state claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata (regardless of whether the

JAMES L. DENNIS, District Judge. ORDER: A member of the court in active service having requested a poll on the reconsideration of this cause en banc, and a majority of the judges in active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R.App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35), rehearing en banc is DENIED. In the en banc poll, seven judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Jolly, Da

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25 - 701 (SLS) v. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jane Doe is a pro s

OPINION OF THE COURT BY SPECIAL JUSTICE JOHN S. REED This matter is before the Court for the second time on transfer from the Court of Appeals. We now consider the appeal and cross-appeal from the December 3, 2012 summary judgment order of the Jefferson Circuit Court, entered after this Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court on December 22, 2011. We reverse the Order of the Jefferson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GERARD NGUEDI, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23-2965 (RDM) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Gerard Nguedi, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the