Cases

ESTATE OF NANCY H. POWELL, DECEASED, JEFFREY J. POWELL, EXECUTOR, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RespondentEstate of Powell v. Comm'rDocket Nos. 24703-12, 24731-12.1

ORDER ROBERT W. PRATT, District Judge. On June 17, 2014, Jason Powell (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against Larry Noble (“Noble”), Gary Slater (“Slater”), D. Smith (“Smith”) and Michael Cunningham (“Cunningham”) (collectively “Defendants”).1 Clerk’s No. 1. Plaintiff asserts generally that on August 15 and 16, 2013, he went to the Iowa State Fairgrounds (“Fairgrounds”) to sha

MEMORANDUM OPINION (December 9, 2008) Per Curiam. Appellants Jewel Powell and Winston a/k/a Tommy Powell (the “Appellants”) appeal an April, 2005 judgment of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands (the “Superior Court”), finding that the Appellees had proven their ownership of certain real property by adverse possession. For the reasons given below, this matter will be remanded to the Supe

¶ 1. Stephen Powell appeals his convictions of sexual battery and conspiracy to commit sexual battery under Mississippi Code Annotated sections 97-3-95 (Rev. 2006) and 97-1-1 (Supp. 2010), respectively. He argues that the trial judge erred: (1) when he sent the jury to continue deliberations twice without giving the Sharplin instruction and (2) when he denied Powell's motion for a mistrial. We find no error and affirm. FACTS<

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge, concurring. Respectfully, I do not share the majority’s doubt as to the merits of Powell’s due process claim. I would instead hold that Powell has a reasonable probability of success on that claim. But I agree with the majority that Powell has failed to show irreparable harm, and I therefore concur in the judgment affirming the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

LOKEN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the court that Jason Powell’s First Amendment claim warrants no greater preliminary injunctive relief than the district court granted. I join Parts I and II of the court’s opinion. I respectfully dissent from the decision to remand for further consideration of whether Powell’s void-for-vagueness Due Pr

652 F.3d 702 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus T. POWELL, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-2535. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued June 8, 2011. Decided July 13, 2011. *705 Kit R. Morrissey, Angela Scott (argued), Attorneys, Office of the United States Attorney, Fairv

493 F.3d 186 (2007) Cynthia J. VICKERS, Appellant v. Donald E. POWELL, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Appellee. No. 06-5016. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued March 14, 2007. Decided July 6, 2007. *187 *188

LEE, P.J., for the Court. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS ¶ 1. On the morning of April 6, 2003, Ronnie Powell entered a BP Service Station in Vicksburg. Linda Redditt, an employee at the BP, testified that Powell approached her, brandishing a gun. Powell demanded money, which Redditt gave to Powell. Although Powell was wearing a gray cap with a black fishnet stocking over his face, Redditt

503 F.3d 147 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Kevin H. POWELL, Jr., Appellant. No. 05-3202. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued September 11, 2007. Decided October 5, 2007. Neil H. Jaffee, Assistant Federal Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was A.J. Kramer, Federal Pu

483 F.3d 836 UNITED STATES of America, Appelleev.Ronald POWELL, Appellant. No. 05-3047. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued January 25, 2007. Decided April 17, 2007. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 04cr00164-01)

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1155 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1156 Grant Powell appeals from an order extending his commitment to a state hospital pursuant to Penal Code section

142 P.3d 1054 (2006) 341 Or. 306 Nancy POWELL, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for Remington Powell, Respondents on Review, v. Stan BUNN, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Oregon Department Of Education and Portland Public School District No. 1J, Petitioners on Review. (CC 010403557; CA A117310; SC S52657, S52659). Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

CALABRESI, Circuit Judge. John Powell appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Among other things, the district court held that Powell did not enjoy qualified immunity from a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm that decision and hold that qualified immunity does not protect a private defendant against § 1983 liability where that private defendant is alleged to have

227 F.Supp.2d 25 (2002) Felix S. BLOCH, Plaintiff, v. Colin POWELL, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of State,[1] Defendant. No. Civ.A. 98-0301(RMU). Document Nos. 47, 48. United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 8, 2002. *26 *27 Michael Jeffrey

Branch, Judge, After six-month-old Keira Pech’s treatment in July 2007 at the emergency room of Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Keira’s parents, Thu Carey Nguyen and Khoeun Pech, brought this negligence action against the hospital, the emergency room physician, the physician’s assistant Michael J. Heyer, and Southwestern Emergency Physicians, P.C. (collectively, “defendants”). Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment,

OPINION OF THE COURT Martin Schoenfeld, J. In this action plaintiff Jeffrey Powell alleges that loud music played by the rock and roll performer John Fogerty permanently damaged the hearing in plaintiff’s left ear. The various defendant parties, who were involved one way or another in presenting the subject concert, now move and cross-move for summary judgment on a variety of grounds. For the reasons set for

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. This CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant Banks’ five (5) Motions to Compel Arbitration currently pending before this Court.1 Coordinated Oral Argument on all Motions to Compel Arbitration was held on April 20, 2010.2 I. BACKGR

NAHMIAS, Justice. This case involves the application, on motion for summary judgment, of Georgia’s so-called “ER statute,” OCGA § 51-1-29.5, which requires that plaintiffs who bring malpractice claims based on “emergency medical care” provided in a hospital emergency department must meet a higher standard and burden of proof to prevail. In this case, the plaintiffs took their infant daughter, who had fallen off a bed, to the e

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge AGEE and Judge DIAZ joined. GREGORY, Circuit Judge: On August 15, 2013, a jury awarded Donna Cisson $250,000 in compensatory damages on a design defect and failure to warn claim against C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”), and awarded an additional $1,750,000 in punitive damages. The puniti