Cases

[Cite as State v. Harris, 2025-Ohio-444.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240266 TRIAL NOS. C/23/CRB/19513B Plaintiff-Appellee, : C/23/CRB/19513C vs. : BRIAN HARRIS, :

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Snodgrass v. Harris, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-3130.] 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 typographi

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 176 Ohio St.3d 394.] SNODGRASS, AUD., APPELLANT, v. HARRIS,1 TAX COMMR., ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Snodgrass v. Harris, 2024-Ohio-3130.] Taxation—Public-utility property—R.C. 5703.05(C), read in pari materia with R.C. 5717.02(A), precludes right of a county auditor to appeal tax commissioner’s final determination setting forth values agreed on in settlement agreement but does not pre

[Cite as State v. Harris, 2023-Ohio-2076.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-220584 TRIAL NO. B-2005938 Plaintiff-Appellee, : : O P I N I O N. VS.

[Cite as Harris v. Hilderbrand, 2022-Ohio-1555.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JEFFERSON COUNTY ALLISON HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DUSTIN HILDERBRAND, Defendant-Appellant.

[Cite as State v. Harris, 2020-Ohio-5425.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 108377 v. : DWAYNE HARRIS, JR., :

[Cite as State v. Harris, 2018-Ohio-3872.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 17AP-350 v. : (C.P.C. No. 15CR-4619) Tinisee Harris,

Cunningham, Presiding Judge. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Mason Angilo Harris, Jr., appeals from the trial court's denial of his post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal. In these consolidated appeals, he claims that following a jury trial, the jury returned inconsistent verdicts on two offenses of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol ("OVI") pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A),

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Audra Lynn Harris is a former inmate of Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. She testified at her deposition that, while incarcerated at Bed-ford Hills, a male officer and three female officers entered her room to take down cotton that she had removed from her mattress and pasted to her room’s windows. The male officer then demanded to know if Harris had any more cotton. According to Harris’s test

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge Under this District Court’s LR40.3(b)(l)(B), pro se plaintiff Cord Harris (“Harris”) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is this Court’s “pen pal” for all lawsuits alleging deprivations of civil rights. Because this Court had received Harris’ first such action via random assignment in Case No. 13 C 801, Harris’ next

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge. This case deals with the constitutionality of various firearms related statutes. Plaintiffs challenge the 10-day waiting period imposed by California Penal Code § 26815(a)1 and § 27540(a),2 and approximately 18 categories of exemptions to the waiting period found in Pena

Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether the First Amendment permits a State to compel personal care providers to subsidize speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support. We hold that it does not, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Dollar Bank, FSB v. Harris, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3069.] 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 typographic

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. David Singer, a former employee of Arkansas State Treasurer Dennis Milligan, is appealing the district court's 1 grant of partial summary judgment to Milligan and his chief of staff, Jim Harris, as well as the court's denial of his motion for a new trial after an adverse jury verdict.

Opinion WERDEGAR, J. The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering a claim by plaintiff that his plea agreement would be violated by requiring him to comply with postconviction amendments to California’s Sex Offender Registration Act, Penal Code section 290 et seq.,1 requested an answer to the following question: “Whether, under California law, the default

450 B.R. 324 (2011) In re Roney HARRIS, Debtor. Roney Harris, Plaintiff v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee Under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of May 1, 2006, Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-A; Fremont Investment & Loan; Litton Loan Servicing LP; USA Financial LLC; and John Does 1-150, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 08-31056-HJB. Adversary No. 09-3052. United States Bank

Case below, 535 Fed.Appx. 630.Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.

640 F.3d 972 (2011) John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kamala D. HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-17362. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 4, 2011. Peggy S. Ruffra, Supervising Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for the appellant, and filed the briefs. Former Attorney General Edmund G. Brown and Senior Assistant Attorney Gene