Cases

[Cite as State v. Groce, 2025-Ohio-4345.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 24AP-334 v. : (C.P.C. No. 16CR-3448) Drakkar D. Groce, :

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Groce, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6671.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or

REID, Senior Judge: We consolidated and expedited consideration of these appeals because they involve *531significant prosecutorial and procedural due process issues relating to the enforcement of civil protection orders (“CPO”) under the District of Columbia’s intrafamily offenses statute, D.C.Code §§ 16-1001, et seq., and because trial court judges have int

786 So.2d 200 (2001) STATE of Louisiana v. John GROCE. No. 00-1609. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. May 4, 2001. Steven D. Crews, Corkern & Crews, Assistant District Attorney, Natchitoches, LA, Counsel for State of Louisiana. James S. Seaman, Attorney at Law, Natchitoches, LA, Counsel for John Groce. Court composed of YELVERTON, SAUNDE

[Cite as State v. Jackson, 2023-Ohio-4368.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-L-021 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas WILLIAM J. JACKSON,

250 Ind. 582 (1968) 236 N.E.2d 597 GROCE v. STATE OF INDIANA. No. 1067S94. Supreme Court of Indiana. Filed May 13, 1968. Rehearing denied June 25, 1968. *583 Henry P. Schrenker, of Anderson, for appellant. John J. Dillon, Attorney General, and Rex P. Killian, De

*909SIMMS, Justice, DISSENTING: Today the majority extends the public policy exception to the termination-at-will doctrine well beyond the narrow boundaries intended to circumscribe it. This public policy exception first announced in Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla.1989), was adopted with the understanding that it would apply only in a “

864 N.E.2d 431 (2007) STATE of Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Karl D. JACKSON, Appellee-Defendant. No. 29A02-0610-CR-867. Court of Appeals of Indiana. April 20, 2007. *433 Steve Carter, Attorney General Of Indiana, Cynthia L. Ploughe, Christopher A. Americanos, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

540 F.3d 578 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie JACKSON, Ieanis Shaw, and Pamela Young, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 06-3848, 06-4124, 06-4399. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued January 17, 2008. Decided August 29, 2008. *580 Christopher P. Hotaling (argued), Office

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ Nos. 06-3848, 06-4124, & 06-4399 U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E DDIE JACKSON, IEANIS S HAW, AND P AMELA Y OUNG, Defendants-Appellants. ____________ Appeals f

495 S.W.2d 36 (1972) Robert E. JACKSON, Appellant, v. Herbert TRAIN et al., Appellees. No. 7416. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. December 28, 1972. *37 P. Otis Hibler, San Antonio, for appellant. Groce, Locke & Hebdon, San Antonio, for appellees. STEPHENSON, Justice. This is an action for damag

Opinion of the Court by Justice WINTERSHEIMER. This appeal and cross-appeal are from an opinion of the Court of Appeals which affirmed an order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Jackson Energy Cooperative Corporation and Jackson Service Plus, Inc. We will refer to the appellees as Jackson Energy in this opinion. The principal issue in this utility case is whether Jackson Energy, a

Morgan, J. Attorney Paul N. Luvera, Jr.1 obtained discretionary review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Beverly Jennifer Ann Kingdom. We reverse. On March 21, 1989, a doctor performed surgery on Kingdom. Soon thereafter, Kingdom acquired an infection that allegedly left her with tissue loss and scarring. Kingdom ask

Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Rendered in Part and Opinion filed January 17, 2013. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-10-00555-CV SOON PHAT, L.P., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A CHARLESTON COURT APARTMENTS, YIN SOON CHOI, MEI LIAN CHOI AND DERSING, INC., Appellants V. JUVENAL ALVARADO AND FELICIANO ALVARDO, Appellees

850 P.2d 376 (1993) 119 Or. App. 181 James H. AMMONS, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Defendant. JACKSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROGUE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, an Oregon corporation, and John S. Campbell, Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. 90-637-L-6; CA A70551.

840 P.2d 1345 (1992) 116 Or. App. 106 James H. AMMONS, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Defendant. JACKSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROGUE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, an Oregon corporation, and John S. Campbell, Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. 90-637-L-6; CA A70551.

273 S.E.2d 666 (1981) STATE of North Carolina v. James Lewis JACKSON. No. 98. Supreme Court of North Carolina. January 27, 1981. *669 Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., by Barry S. McNeill, Associate Atty. Gen., for the State. Barry T. Winston, Chapel Hill, for defendant-appellant. HUSKINS, Justice: Defendant fir

March 24, 1902. The opinion of the Court was delivered by James Ponder, the husband of the defendant, Julia Ponder, and father of the defendants, Andrew J., William F. and Thomas J. Ponder, on the 17th day of June, 1891, gave to the plaintiff his note for $1,590, with interest thereon, and secured the payment of the note by his deed by way of mortgage upon 186 1-4 acres of land, executed contemporaneously with the aforesaid. A credit of ten years was provided in the note. The said James Ponde

The West Lumber Company brought this suit against J. W. Groce and R. B. Eglin, partners, composing the firm of Groce Eglin, alleging that on the 10th day of June, 1910, plaintiff and defendants entered into a verbal agreement by the terms *Page 520 of which the defendants were to purchase certain timber standing and growing on plaintiff's land in Polk county out of which defendants desired to manufacture stave bolts, and that it was then agreed that the

273 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2001) Miller Aviation, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, Robert Jackson, Sheila Aldrich, et al., Defendants-Appellants,andMilwaukee County, Defendant-Third/Party Plaintiff- Appellant,v.Air Vehicle Transportation, LLC, Third/Party Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-1891 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit