Cases

ORDER PER CURIAM: Appeal from the judgment of the trial court in a dissolution proceeding which divided nonmarital and marital property and debt. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)

708 S.E.2d 10 (2011) RICHARDSON v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. No. A10A2184. Court of Appeals of Georgia. February 17, 2011. Reconsideration Denied March 10, 2011. *11 Brace W. Luquire, for Appellant. Jorge Vega, Columbus, Natalie Marie Christensen Beasman, Atlanta, for Appellee. Fred D. Bentley, Jr., Am

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 24th day of October 2005 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: *825"Dismissed as moot by order of the Cou

Defendants appeal from the opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Plaintiff Michael Swift was born on 28 February 1974. He graduated from high school and attended college at Austin Peay State, but did not graduate. Although he was not drafted as a professional football player, plaintiff made the San Diego Chargers as a free agent. Plaintiff worked primarily on special teams, but also played cornerback on defense. After playing two seasons with the Chargers, pla

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th day of October 2005 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006." TIMMONS-GOODSON, J. recused.

658 S.E.2d 674 (2008) Michael SWIFT, Employee, Plaintiff v. RICHARDSON SPORTS LTD. PARTNERS, d/b/a Carolina Panthers, Employer, and Legion Insurance Company, c/o Cameron M. Harris & Company, Carrier, Defendants. No. COA07-685. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. January 15, 2008. R. James Lore, Cary, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner &a;

Barnes, Judge, dissenting. As I cannot agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to give Richardson a thorough consideration of his case, I must respectfully dissent. In Wymbs v. Stokes, 236 Ga. App. 742 (512 SE2d 669) (1999), this court held for the first time that the relationship between a grandparent and a deceased grandchild could be considered wh

Defendants appeal from the opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Plaintiff Michael Swift was born on 28 February 1974. He graduated from high school and attended college at Austin Peay State, but did not graduate. Although he was not drafted as a professional football player, plaintiff made the San Diego Chargers as a free agent. Plaintiff worked primarily on special teams, but also played cornerback on defense. After playing two seasons with the Chargers, pla

616 S.E.2d 317 (2005) Dusty RENFRO, Employee, Plaintiff v. RICHARDSON SPORTS LTD. Partners d/b/a Carolina Panthers, Employer and Legion Insurance Company (Cameron M. Harris & Company, Servicing Agent), Carrier, Defendants. No. COA04-1407. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. August 2, 2005. R. James Lore, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant. Hedrick Eatma

616 S.E.2d 245 (2005) Charles H. SMITH, III, Employee, Plaintiff, v. RICHARDSON SPORTS LTD. I.C. PARTNERS d/b/a CAROLINA PANTHERS, Employer, Legion Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants. No. COA03-1130-2. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. August 2, 2005. R. James Lore, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellee. Hedrick, Eatmon, Gardner & Kincheloe, L.L.P., b

HUNTER, Judge. Richardson Sports Ltd. Partners, d/b/a The Carolina Panthers, et al. (“defendants”) present the following issues for our consideration: whether the North Carolina Industrial Commission (“Commission”) erred in (I) only allowing defendants a fourteen-week credit, with an approximately $8,000.00 value, for approximately six million dollars in post-injury payments to plaintiff and not allowing a dollar-for-dollar cr

*********** The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before former Deputy Commissioner Jones and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives or amend the Opinion and Award, except for modifications regarding the period of disability, defendants' enti

*********** The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Houser. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. The Full Commission REVERSES the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner and enters the following Opinion and Award. *********** The Full Commission finds as fact and co

DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. Plaintiff appeals from a denial of Supplemental Security Income and disability insurance benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”). The action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the final determination of the Commissioner. On August 1, 2006, plaintiff filed an application for Sup

*********** The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Holmes and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award, except for minor modifications. Accordingly, the Full Commission a

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be May 07 2020, 6:26 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.