Cases

761 F.Supp. 1520 (1991) Jerry Thomas GRACE, Plaintiff, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, et al., Defendants. No. 85-530-Civ-J-16. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. March 28, 1991. *1521 Jerry Thomas Grace, pro se. Cecilia Bradley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for defen

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.

677 F.2d 116 *Gracev.Wainwright 81-5653 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Eleventh Circuit 5/4/82 1 N.D.Fla. AFFIRMED 2 ---------------

SMITH, Circuit Judge. Grace Gillis brought suit against The Principia Corporation, doing business as *868 Principia College (“Principia”), asserting (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and (4)' neglig

548 F.3d 155 (2008) ESTATE OF Daniel BENNETT, II, Arlene Bedard, Isabel Bedard, and Laurie Hart, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Christopher WAINWRIGHT, Matthew Baker, Timothy Turner, James Miclon, James Davis, Lloyd Herrick, and County of Oxford, Maine, Defendants, Appellees. No. 07-2169. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard April 7, 2008. Decided N

Brassard, J. This case raises the question of what happens to a contract, namely a fee agreement, after a party’s death when performance, specifically, representation in the underlying matter, has not yet been accomplished. The plaintiff, Kevin J. Erb (“Erb”), who is an attorney, rendered his services as agreed, however, the estate of the deceased, Robert Lane, discontinued payments under the fee agreement. Erb represented Lane

658 A.2d 1011 (1995) Gary W. GRACE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 311, 1994. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: May 16, 1995. Decided: June 5, 1995. Lloyd A. Schmid, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Dover, for appellant. John Williams, Deputy Atty. Gen., Dover, for appellee. Before VEASE

752 F.2d 526 Alvin Bernard FORD, or Connie Ford, individually and actingas next friend on behalf of Alvin Bernard Ford,Petitioners-Appellants,v.Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Corrections,State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee. No. 84-5372. United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Jan. 17, 1985.

636 So.2d 746 (1994) W.R. GRACE & CO. — Conn., Appellant, v. Joan DOUGHERTY, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Arthur J. Dougherty, Appellee. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORP., Appellant, v. Joan DOUGHERTY, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Arthur J. Dougherty, Appellee. Nos. 92-04290, 92-04328. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Seco

448 So.2d 1067 (1984) Frank J. BARANKO, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondent. Nos. AV-109, AV-110. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. March 21, 1984. Rehearing Denied May 3, 1984. *1068 Frank J. Baranko, petitioner pro se. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Gregory C. Smith, Asst. Atty.

536 F.Supp. 1330 (1982) Harold Raymond HOOKS, et al., Plaintiffs, Michael E. Provence, et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Defendant. Nos. 71-144-Civ-J-S, 71-1011-Civ-J-S. United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. April 14, 1982. *1331 Sydney

389 So.2d 1181 (1980) Louie L. WAINWRIGHT and Florida Parole and Probation Commission, Appellants, v. Larry Edward TURNER, James Benner Bailey, Jr., William G. Brooker, Richard Lee Rieser, Howard Gene Kilgore, and John Michael Haddon, Appellees. No. 58572. Supreme Court of Florida. October 30, 1980. Michael H. Davidson, General Counsel for the Florida Parole and Pro

379 So.2d 148 (1980) Larry TURNER, James Benner Bailey, Jr., William G. Brooker, Richard Lee Rieser, Howard Gene Kilgore, and John Michael Haddon, Petitioners, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondents. Larry Edward TURNER, Appellant, v. FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, Appellee. Nos. KK-260, MM-471, MM-448, NN-84, NN-198, PP-246 and LL-128. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First Dist

376 So.2d 855 (1979) Hennard HARRIS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondent. No. 56716. Supreme Court of Florida. November 1, 1979. Hennard Harris, in pro. per., for petitioner. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and A.S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent. ADKINS, Acting Chief Justice. In original habeas corpus proceedings, pet

Per Curiam. This appeal is from a decree of divorce granted to the respondent. Ho good purpose can be sub-served by discussing the testimony in a meretricious divorce suit. Suffice it to say, that the respondent by his own confession was of a salacious nature, while the record as plainly shows that the appellant was cold, designing, and venal, and that she took advantage of the almost imbecile weakness of the respondent for the

CLARK, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In the law, as in many other disciplines, where one ends up is frequently determined by where one begins. The majority fails to' address and *529decide whether there is a constitutional prohibition against execution of an insane person. The court says that “[n]o federal appellate court has so hel

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ════════════

338 F.Supp. 819 (1972) Ernest Jackson COTTLE, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent. No. 70-986-Civ.-J. United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. February 28, 1972. *820 Morton A. Kesler, Gutman & Kesler, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioner

COFFIN, Chief Judge. Appellants, Frank and Ross Grace, were tried together in 1974 in Massachusetts Superior Court for the murder of Marvin Morgan. The government’s case depended largely on the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified the Graces as the victim’s assailants. The appellants each proffered *3an alibi defense

PER CURIAM: In this consolidated appeal four inmates of the Florida State Prison at Raiford seek relief against alleged deprivations of constitutional rights resulting from their confinement in that institution. The District Court dismissed each of the complaints without a hearing or any other sort of factual investigation on the theory that the practices in question were within the scope of the broad official discretion p