⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “John H. Ray, Jr.”

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2003-06-26 · Published · cited 0×
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-02-00431-CV Gerald H. Laubach, Appellant v. John C. Chunn; Frank B. Suhr, Jr.; John Bevil; Troy D. Burch, Jr.; Rosemary Flores; and Jimmy Ray Dorsey, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. C99-924A & C2002-253A, HONORABLE ROBERT ESCHE
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2003-06-26 · Published · cited 0×
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-02-00431-CV Gerald H. Laubach, Appellant
Falk, John Ray Jr.public domain
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2021-05-19 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. AP-77,071 JOHN RAY FALK, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 27347 IN THE 278TH DISTRICT COURT WALKER COUNTY Per curiam.
Falk, John Ray Jr.public domain
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2018-07-25 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. AP-77,071 JOHN RAY FALK, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 27347 IN THE 278 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT WALKER COUNTY Per curiam.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2015-08-25 · Published · cited 99× · 799 F.3d 99; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15026; 127 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1606; 2015 WL 5011753
HOWARD, Chief Judge. John H. Ray III, at the time an associate at the Boston law firm of Ropes & Gray (“Ropes”), was informed in December 2008 that Ropes would not advance him for further consideration as a partner. Contending that the employer’s decision was the result of racial discrimination, and that Ropes retaliated against Ray in various ways after he filed a complaint w
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2001-06-13 · Published · cited 1× · 253 F.3d 1308; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 12875
EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge: This appeal is about judicial recusal. Because we conclude that the district court judge should have recused himself from this case, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. I. Plaintiff Bradley Murray, a member of the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (BASS), brought suit individually
Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2023-07-19 · Published · cited 0×
The Supreme Court of South Carolina The State, Respondent, v. Timothy Ray Jones Jr., Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2019-001008 ORDER After careful consideration of Appellant's petition for rehearing, the Court grants the petition for rehearing on Issue I, dispenses with further briefing, and substitutes the attached opinion for the opinion previously filed in this matter. The Court denies
Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2023-03-29 · Published · cited 0×
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court The State, Respondent, v. Timothy Ray Jones Jr., Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2019-001008 Appeal from Lexington County Eugene C. Griffith Jr., Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 28145 Heard November 9, 2021 – Filed March 29, 2023 AFFIRME
Irick v. Raypublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010-12-15 · Published · cited 2× · 628 F.3d 787; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25522; 2010 WL 5094055
628 F.3d 787 (2010) Billy R. IRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gayle RAY, in her official capacity as Tennessee's Commissioner of Correction; Ricky J. Bell, in his official capacity as warden of Riverbend Maximum Security Institution; Reuben Hodge, Warden, in his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Correction; Mark H. Luttrell, Jr., in his official capacity as Assistant Commissioner of Operations; John Doe Physicians
Ray v. Anoka Countypublic domain
District Court, D. Minnesota · 2014-06-04 · Published · cited 0× · 24 F. Supp. 3d 843; 2014 WL 2511087; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75792
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PAUL A. MAGNUSON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and/or to Sever. For the reasons that follow, the Motions to Dismiss are granted and the. Motions to Sever are denied as moot. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Michelle Ray alleges that Defendants1 illegally accessed her driver’s
Ray v. Laureanopublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005-03-04 · Published · cited 0× · 121 F. App'x 1000
PER CURIAM: Michael Robert Ray seeks to appeal the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s order of March 5, 2004. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Ray se
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2021-05-27 · Published · cited 0×
05/27/2021 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 18, 2021 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DONALD RAY PENNINGTON, JR. Appeal from the Criminal Court for Bradley County No. 17-CR-307 Sandra Donaghy, Judge ___________________________________
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · 2019-07-18 · Published · cited 0×
Affirmed and Opinion filed July 18, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00148-CR JOHNNY RAY RYDER, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2016-10-24 · Published · cited 0×
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-16-00207-CR Torrance Ray Evans, Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 74740, HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING O R D E R A N D ME M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N P
Ray v. Raypublic domain
Missouri Court of Appeals · 1994-05-24 · Published · cited 12× · 877 S.W.2d 648; 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 822; 1994 WL 199800
877 S.W.2d 648 (1994) Clifford H. RAY, Appellant, v. Lavonne Ann RAY, Respondent. No. WD 47949. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. Submitted April 20, 1994. May 24, 1994. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied June 28, 1994. *649 Douglass F. Noland, Liberty, for appellant. J
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2012-11-05 · Published · cited 5× · 700 F.3d 755; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22717; 2012 WL 5383540
PER CURIAM: Before the Court is Defendant John Ray Edward Terrell’s (“Defendant-Appellant Terrell”) appeal of his conviction for one count of producing child pornography and sexually exploiting a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) & (e), and one count of knowingly possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), 2252A(b)(2
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2019-07-11 · Published · cited 0×
07/11/2019 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 14, 2018 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN THOMAS MULLINICKS, JR. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dickson County No. 22CC-2016-CR-178 Suzanne Lockert-Mash, Judge ___________________________________
Indiana Supreme Court · 2018-02-14 · Published · cited 39× · 90 N.E.3d 1171
Massa, Justice. A century ago, our Court of Appeals recognized that, among those rights acquired upon admission to the Union, the State owns and holds "in trust" the lands under navigable waters within its borders, "including the shores or space between ordinary high and low water marks, for the benefit of the people of the state ." Lake Sand Co. v. State
Michigan Supreme Court · 2008-07-29 · Published · cited 0×
Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997-07-21 · Published · cited 22× · 119 F.3d 972; 41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,133; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 18168; 1997 WL 405949
LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. appeals from the final decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals granting summary judgment for the United States Navy on the ground that payments made by Ingalls under 33 U.S.C. § 914(e) (1994) were “in the nature of a fine or penalty” and thus were not chargeable to its contracts with the Navy pursuant to Federal