Cases

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3602 JESSE W ATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K EITH A NGLIN, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 04-2059—Harold A. Baker, Judge. A RGUED D ECEMBER 1

ACCEPTED 15-25-00051-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/21/2025 6:22 PM NO. 15-25-00051-CV CHRISTOPHER A.

744 P.2d 491 (1987) The UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Robert W. JESSE, Water Division No. 2 Engineer; State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources and all other Departments, Agencies and Divisions, and on behalf of the People of the State of Colorado; City and County of Denver, By and Through its Board of Water Commissioners; Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company; City of Colorado

560 F.3d 687 (2009) Jesse WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Keith ANGLIN, Respondent-Appellee. No. 07-3602. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued December 12, 2008. Decided March 30, 2009. *688 David E. Frank (argued), Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Milwaukee, WI, for Petitioner-Appellant.

706 S.E.2d 296 (2011) In the Matter of Ronald WATSON. No. COA10-365. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. February 15, 2011. *297 Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Susannah B. Cox, Butner, for the State. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Kristen L. Todd, Durham, for responde

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS _______________

Nichols, Presiding Judge. 1. “In criminal cases the corpus delicti, the identity of the stolen property, and the accused’s connection with the commission of the crime, may all be established by circumstantial evidence where such evidence is sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused, Wiggins. v. State, 80 Ga. App. 213 (55 SE2d 821), Edwards v. State, 24 Ga. App

Order Remanding for Findings of Fact Petitioners Gallagher Headquarters Ranch Development, Ltd., Chris Hill, and Julie Hooper sued Respondent City of San Antonio and its agencies for breaching a "contract with the voters" because the City allegedly used money dedicated to purchase land for conservation purposes to instead purchase land from Gallagher to build an electrical grid. Funding for the project had been approved by voter referendum. The trial

269 S.W.3d 628 (2008) GALLAGHER HEADQUARTERS RANCH DEVELOPMENT, LTD., Christopher Hill, and Julie Hooper, Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, City Public Service, and San Antonio Water System, Appellees. No. 04-07-00325-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. July 23, 2008. *631 Mike A. Hatchell, Charles A. Watson, Elissa G.

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Jesse Sanchez appeals from a judgment entered in favor of the defendant United States Postal Service (Postal Service) in this civil rights case. Sanchez presents a single issue in his appeal: whether the alleged ineffective assistance rendered by his trial counsel entitles him to a new trial. Finding Sanchez’

920 F.Supp. 1278 (1995) Dorothy McBRIDE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GALAXY CARPET MILLS, INC., et al., Defendants. Violet HOWELL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHAW INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action Nos. 4:93-cv-309-RLV, 4:93-cv-321-RLV. United States District Cour

280 S.E.2d 794 (1981) Jesse A. BROOME, et ux. Lewellyn T. Broome v. Christopher S. PISTOLIS, et ux. Helen A. Pistolis. No. 807SC1180. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. August 4, 1981. *795 Hopkins & Allen by Grover Prevatte Hopkins and Janice Watson Davidson, Tarboro, for plaintiffs-appellants. Weeks, Muse & Surl

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Rodney Shoap ("Shoap") brought this action against the City of Crossville ("Crossville") and Jesse Kerley ("Kerley"), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1968 ("ADEA"); the Tennessee Human Rights Act,

ORDER ALAIMO, District Judge. In this action, Plaintiff, ABC Home Health Services, Inc. (“ABC”), contends that its fiscal intermediary under the Medicare program, Aetna Life Insurance Company (“Aetna”), sought to destroy ABC through the Medicare audit process. Specifically, ABC claims that Aetna’s audit decisions were biased, thereby depriving ABC of its right to a fair and impartial interme

341 S.W.2d 728 (1960) Jesse WATSON v. STATE of Tennessee. Supreme Court of Tennessee. December 9, 1960. *729 James P. Brown, Knoxville, for plaintiff in error. David M. Pack, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. TOMLINSON, Justice. The only error assigned by Watson on this, his appeal from a conviction of armed robbery, is that</

PER CURIAM. The decrees appealed from in this case are amended so as to read “without prejudice,” and as amended affirmed, with costs. On Application for Rehearing. The judge below gave no written reasons for his decree dismissing the bills in this case; but we gathered from the arguments at the bar that counsel understood that the reasons were want of equity, multifariousness, misjoinder of

208 Ga. 512 (1951) 67 S.E.2d 704 WATSON v. WATSON. 17642. Supreme Court of Georgia. Argued October 9, 1951. Decided November 14, 1951. Jesse T. Edwards, for plaintiff in error. Franklin, Eberhardt & Barham, contra. CANDLER, Justice. W. E. Watson, a resident of Lowndes County, died Januar

352 S.W.3d 27 (2011) Rocky Dee HIDROGO, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 11-09-00310-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland. April 7, 2011. Rehearing Overruled April 20, 2011. Discretionary Review Refused August 24, 2011. *29 Stan Brown, Abilene, TX, for appellant. B.J. Sh

Richman, J. *278We began a recent opinion with the observation that "[o]ne of the more disconcerting things that can occur at a criminal trial is the discovery that there is no CALCRIM instruction for the offense charged, thus requiring the judge-hopefully with the assistance of counsel-to formulate appropriate instructions from scratch." (

355 S.W.2d 65 (1962) Raymond D. WATSON et al., Appellants, v. DRUID HILLS COMPANY, Appellee. No. 15948. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas. January 19, 1962. Rehearing Denied February 16, 1962. *66 C. C. Renfro, Dallas, for appellants. Eades & Eades, Eric Eades, Jr., Dallas, for appellee. D