Cases

PER CURIAM. The State of Florida appeals the sentence imposed on Shanna Marie Holbrook, contending that the sentence is illegal because it failed to include any statutorily required sanctions for a first Driving Under the Influence with Alcohol Level.15 or Higher offense.1 Holbrook concedes that the sentence is in error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing. REV

860 P.2d 339 (1993) STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Curtis PALMER, Defendant and Appellant. No. 930192-CA. Court of Appeals of Utah. July 22, 1993. *341 Elizabeth Holbrook, Salt Lake City, for appellant. Jan Graham and Kris Leonard, Salt Lake City, for appellee. Before BILLINGS, JACKSON and RUSSON, JJ.

OPINION JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This case concerns the tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) statute of limitations during the pendency of a State post-conviction motion. Cameron Holbrook, a Michigan prisoner, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his federal habeas corpus petition broug

170 Mich. App. 288 (1988) 427 N.W.2d 620 McKAY v. PALMER Docket No. 99881. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided July 20, 1988. Frank W. Cormack, for plaintiffs. Clark, Klein & Beaumont (by Michael V. Kell and Lenora P. Ledwon), for Winifred P. Croul. Before: HOLBROOK, JR., P.J., and MacKENZIE and N.

139 Ga. App. 510 (1976) 229 S.E.2d 21 HOLBROOK v. CITY OF ATLANTA. 52378. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Argued July 6, 1976. Decided September 9, 1976. J. Larry Palmer, for appellant. Thomas F. Choyce, Henry L. Bowden, Joe Harris, for appellee. McMURRAY, Judge. This appeal arises out of a sui

Holbrook, Jr., P.J. The Estes-Palmer Foundation (the Foundation) appeals as of right from the Ingham County Probate Court’s order granting Central United Methodist Church’s (cumc) petition, brought pursuant to the Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act (umifa), MCL 451.1201 et seq.; MSA 26.1199(1) et seq., for partial release from a restriction in a charitable trust created by the will of Marne Estes. Cum

57 Mich. App. 210 (1974) 226 N.W.2d 60 CHURCHILL v. PALMER Docket No. 18663. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided December 5, 1974. William R. VanderKloot, for plaintiff. Greenberg & Walker (by Alan G. Greenberg and Ralph H. Watt), for Robert J. Palmer. Paul G. Valentino, P.C., for Gene W. Fr

47 Mich. App. 512 (1973) 209 N.W.2d 710 PEOPLE v. PALMER Docket No. 14945. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided May 25, 1973. *513 Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Ronald J. Taylor, Prosecuting Attorney, and Edward L. Skinner, Assistant P

VANCE, Commissioner. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court which upheld an order of the Alcoholic Beverage Con*342trol Board denying the issuance of a malt beverage distributor’s license. The appellant, Kenneth Bickett, d/b/a Bickett Distributing Company, is the holder of a beer distributing license in Bowling Green, Warren

On appeal we review order of circuit court inter alia as follows: "This cause came on to be heard on the 8th day of July A.D. 1942, on motion to the plaintiff to tax costs. At said hearing the parties by their Attorneys, Mr. G.P. Garrett for the plaintiff, and Mr. W.R. Smith and Mr. G.B. Fishback for the defendants, stipulated and agreed orally before the Court 'that the item shown in the motion to tax costs in the amount of $300.00 was expended by the plaintiff, H.J. Laney, for the re

In this case it is sought to have this Court review on certiorari the judgment of the Circuit Court of Orange County entered on petition for certiorari from that court to review the action of the Board of Public Instruction of Orange County acting under authority of Chapter 18743, Acts of 1937. Section 6 of Chapter 18743, Acts of 1937, provides the procedure for reviewing the finding of the Board. The decision of the Board may be reviewed by the circuit court by certiorari or by any ot

352 So.2d 419 (1977) Garland HOLBROOK, d/b/a Holbrook's Restaurant Equipment Sales, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Joseph R. PALERMO et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. 6182. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. November 17, 1977. *420 Camp, Carmouche, Palmer, Carwile & Barsh, James E. Williams, Lake Charles, for defen

338 So.2d 86 (1976) Lydia L. PALMER, Appellant, v. Stanford B. PALMER, Jr., Appellee. No. AA-400. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. October 13, 1976. *87 S. Gordon Blalock of Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Issac, Jacksonville, for appellant. E. Thornton Jackson, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellee.

John R. Heilman, J. This proceeding was brought on by an order dated May 7, 1969, directing the .respondent father to show cause why the petitioner mother should not have an order of this court permitting her to withdraw her original writ of habeas corpus involving custody of their two children. The parties are separated and there apparently. is a matrimonial action pending between them. The petitioner originally

450 F.2d 134 71-2 USTC P 9670 Finley W. HOLBROOK and Faith Holbrook, Petitioners-Appellants,v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 31113. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Oct. 8, 1971.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 20, 1971.See 451 F.2d 1350.

GILBERT, J.: If the complaint in this case does not show that the County Court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, it contains nothing showing that such court had not jurisdiction thereof. The complaint was dismissed on the latter ground. That was error. In the case of Judge v. Hall (5 Lans., 69), this point was, we think, erroneously decided. The Code of Civil Procedure (§ 498) author

1 Wn. App. 152 (1969) 459 P.2d 812 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. FRANCIS CLAYTON PALMER, Appellant. No. 59-40428-1. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, Panel 1. October 22, 1969. *153 McDonnell & Alfieri and James A. Alfieri, for appellant. Charles O. Car

338 Mass. 218 (1958) 154 N.E.2d 605 DONALD B. HOLBROOK vs. MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden. September 24, 1958. December 8, 1958. Present: WILKINS, C.J., RONAN, SPALDING, WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN, WHITTEMORE, & CUTTER, JJ. *219 James W. Duffy &

HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge. The City of Monticello, Utah, and its Chief of Police, Kent Adair, appeal a judgment on a jury verdict for the plaintiff, Brett Palmer, a former Monticello police officer. Palmer brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his due process rights were violated when he was terminated from employment as a Monticello police officer. A state law cl

133 Cal.App.2d 705 (1955) PAUL A. PALMER, Respondent, v. PHILIP L. WAHLER et al., Appellants. Civ. No. 8548. California Court of Appeals. Third Dist. June 20, 1955. Blewett, Blewett, Macey & Garretson and Rolla L. Garretson for Appellants. Carlton & Shadwell and Daniel S. Carlton for Respondent. FINLEY, J. pro tem. [fn. *]