Cases

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court The State, Respondent, v. Gregg Pickrell, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2022-000211 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS Appeal from Kershaw County William A. McKinnon, Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 28229 Heard October 24, 2023 – Filed

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals The State, Respondent, v. Gregg Pickrell, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2018-001139 Appeal From Kershaw County Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge William A. McKinnon, Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 5878 Heard February 10, 202

Judicial Merit Selection Commission Sen. Luke A. Rankin, Chairman Erin B. Crawford, Chief Counsel Sen. Ronnie A. Sabb Emma Dean, Counsel Sen. Scott Talley Rep. J. Todd Rutherford Rep. Jeffrey E. “Jeff” Johnson Rep. Micajah P. “Micah” Caskey, IV Hope Blackley Lucy Grey McIver Andrew N. Safran J.P. “Pete” Strom Jr.

Reinhard, J. The appellee filed a claim in the form of an itemized account against the estate of appellant’s decedent. To this the appellant filed an answer in three paragraphs, the first being the general denial, and the second and third were by way of set-off, containing averments that appellant, as administrator of the estate of his decedent, had recovered a judgment against the claimant at a previous term of court, founded u

This case involves a conditional guilty plea that allowed a defendant to preserve the right to appeal a trial court order denying a motion to suppress. We conclude that the issue whether conditional guilty pleas should be authorized has not been definitively answered by our supreme court. As a result, we must decide, for the purposes of resolving this case, whether they are authorized. To resolve this issue, we first analyze the status of conditional guilty pleas throughout the

OPINION HAYNES, District Judge. Plaintiff, Executrix of the Estate of Lorraine Coate, deceased,1 appeals an order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissing Plaintiffs claims for denial of medical treatment for Coate in violation of her rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff asserts that material factual disputes

OPINION & ORDER ALGENON L. MARBLEY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Defendant Washington County Career Center’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). (Doc. 63). Plaintiff, Carrie Johnson, brings this action to recover for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, relating to her terminat

37 F.Supp.2d 1021 (1999) Mark E. WOLFE, Plaintiff, v. The VILLAGE OF BRICE, OHIO, Defendant. No. 95CV00894. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. March 11, 1999. Eric P. Rotondo, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff. David W. Telford Carroll, Columbus, OH, for Defendant. *1022 OPINION AND OR

OPINION BROWN, Judge. ¶ 1 The question we address is whether Arizona’s statutory provision governing the priority of mechanics’ liens (Arizona Revised Statutes (“AR.S.”) section 33-992(A)) permits a court to shift lien priorities by applying the doctrine of equitable subrogation. Because § 33-992(A) expressly provides that mechanics’ liens have priority over all subsequent encumbrances (subject t

997 F.Supp. 939 (1998) Mark E. WOLFE, Plaintiff, v. The VILLAGE OF BRICE, OHIO, Defendant. No. 95CV00894. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. March 17, 1998. *940 Eric P. Rotondo, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff. David W. Telford Carroll, Columbus, OH, for Defendant.

445 F.Supp.2d 835 (2006) HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et al., Defendants. No. 1:03-CV-00355. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. February 9, 2006. *836 *837 George F. Carpinello, Stanley M. Chesley, Fay E. Stilz,

243 Ga. 312 (1979) 253 S.E.2d 736 HOLTON v. THE STATE. 34272. Supreme Court of Georgia. Argued January 8, 1979. Decided March 6, 1979. Rehearing Denied March 27, 1979. Lawrence L. Schneider, Stroud P. Stacy, for appellant. Randall Peek, District Attorney, Calvin A. Leipold, Jr., Assistant Dis

OPINION By CECIL, District Judge. This case was removed to this court from the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Ohio. It is now pending before the court upon a motion of the defendant to dismiss the action because of insufficiency of the service of process, lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and failure of the petition to state a cause of action against the defendant. As an alte

OPINION By CASE, J. On April 12,1957, Fleet Maintenance Company, one of the defendants herein, filed the following motion: “Comes now the defendant, Fleet Maintenance Company, not entering its appearance herein, or intending to enter its appearance herein, and appearing solely for the purpose of this motion, and for no other purpose, and without submitting itself to the jurisd

Jackson, Judge, delivered tbe opinion of tbe court: Tbe merchandise involved in this appeal is sunflower oil imported in January 1937. The Collector of Customs at tbe port of New York *162classified it as an expressed or extracted vegetable oil, not specially provided for, under paragraph. 53 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and pursuant thereto assessed the

Jackson, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: In the. month of November, 1937, appellee' imported a shipment pf rapeseed oil from Japan. The Collector of Customs at the port of New York classified the merchandise under paragraph 1732 of the free list of the Tariff Act of 1930 which reads as follows: Par. 1732. Oils, expressed or extracted: Croton, palm, perilla, and sweet almond; ol

Mr. Justice Cardozo, dissenting. The federal court in Texas is under a duty, prescribed by statute (R.S. § 905; 28 U.S.C. § 687; American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 166), to give full faith and credit to judicial proceedings in Illinois, including proceedings under writs of garnishment or attachment. Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. 139. This does not mean that the proc

The opinion of the court was delivered by Johnston, J.: The plaintiff brought replevin to recover the possession of six hundred bushels of corn, which the defendant, as sheriff, had levied on, and was holding under an attachment and an execution. In 1883, Thomas Burnside was the owner of a growing crop of corn, and on September 18,1883, he executed a chattel mortgage upon a portion of the growing corn to secure

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff-appellee, Cost Christopher, was the owner of a parcel of ground divided into three lots, designated by the street numbers 3118-20-22 Georgia Avenue, N. W. There was a business house on the lot numbered 3118. The other two lots were unimproved and vacant. By a lease dated June 3, 1949, C

Black, J. This was an action of replevin, brought by the appellant against the appellees, Christopher C. Simon, William H. Kreager and John D. Kreager, who answered by genera! denial. The cause was tried by. the court and a special finding was rendered, with conclusions of law in favor ©f the appellees. A motion for a new trial made by the appellant having been overruled, judgment was rendere