Cases

BEAM, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶ 1. John Terry sued his former court-appointed attorney Oby Rogers in the Covington County Circuit Court, claiming fraud, legal malpractice, and violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The trial court granted Rog

WILSON, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶ 1. This appeal follows a jury trial in a will contest. The contestant, Frederick Rogers, alleges that his mother's will was the product of his brother's undue influence. However, the jury found that the will was valid, and the chancellor entered judgment on the verdict. On appeal, Frederick argues (1) that the chancellor should have given a peremptory instr

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D2023-0064 LT Case No. 16-2017-CA-004945 _____________________________ KATHLEEN JENNINGS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellant, v. HUGH M. DURDEN, JOHN S. LORD, THOMAS G. KUNTZ, TERRI KELLY, GEOFFREY M. ROGERS, and WINIFRED L. THORNTON, as Trustees under the Last Will and Testament

PER CURIAM. This is a petition for a review of the decision of the Tax Court (44 T.C. 126). This Court has jurisdiction (26 U.S.C. § 7482). The Tax Court held the Petitioners’ transfer of a parcel of realty and the contemporaneous acquisition of another parcel of realty was not a tax-free exchange within the purview of § 1031 of the

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge bln this appeal, we primarily consider whether certain expenditures were permissible expenses of the guardianship of John Collins Rogers. After years of litigation, the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Ninth Division, entered an order allowing and disallowing certain expenditures and terminating the guardianship. Both Barbara Rogers

MARTIN, Circuit Judge: When a private person brings a False Claims Act suit-known as a qui tam action-the government may choose to intervene and take over the action. 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b)(2). It may also choose to pursue "any alternate

**668 Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in 1999. In claims III through VI, he alleged that penalty phase witness Tambri Butler had misidentified him as the man who assaulted and raped her. Petitioner claimed that newly discovered evidence showed that an individual named Michael Ratzlaff was the assailant. Petitio

940 A.2d 755 (2008) 285 Conn. 528 STATE of Connecticut v. JOHN F.M. No. 17677. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued September 20, 2007. Decided February 19, 2008. *756 James M. Ralls, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-07-00053-CV

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-07-00053-CV

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-07-00053-CV ______________________________ ROD ROGERS AND MARY E. ROGERS, TRUSTEES OF THE CRAWFORD M. ROGERS AND MARY E. ROGERS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Appellants V. JASPER STOVER, W. T. BARBER, RUBY RIGSBY, JOH

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Notwithstanding this Court's best efforts to resolve the matter once and for all, the seemingly endless saga of the $100,000 Promissory Note continues. On February 20, 2018, this Court entered an Order that, in pertinent part, reads: The unopposed Motion for Entry of Order of Voluntary Dismissal of Cause of Action for Unjust Enri

HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Medline Industries, Inc.'s Motion [55] for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Richard K. Rogers alleges Defendant discriminated against him based on his age when it terminated his employment. After due consideration of the record, Defendant's Motion, and relevant legal authority, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion [55] for Summary Judgment s

OPINION R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant, John M. Valley, appeals the district court’s decision in favor of Defendant-Appellee, the Commissioner of Social Security, requiring Valley to repay social security benefits to the Social Security Administration. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

*442 Opinion BRUINIERS, J. Siblings Michael (Mike) McGraw, John McGraw and Ann M. Morrical are coequal shareholders of a group of family corporations. 1 Disputes between the siblings over the management of these corporations

275 P.3d 574 (2012) Christopher Erin ROGERS Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee. No. A-10716. Court of Appeals of Alaska. May 4, 2012. Josie Garton, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Kenneth M. Rosenstein, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions

Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge ROGERS. ROGERS, Circuit Judge. When John Lesesne filed a complaint against the District of Columbia and others regarding the pretrial conditions of his confinement he was no longer confined. Under the plain terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), he therefore was no longer required

343 S.C. 329 (2001) 540 S.E.2d 840 April M. ROGERS, Petitioner, v. Sidney ROGERS, Respondent. No. 25229. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Submitted November 15, 2000. Decided January 8, 2001. *330 April M. Hall, pro se petitioner. John Sidney Rogers, pro se respondent. MOORE,

HULL, Circuit Judge: Jean Neckson Cadet, a Haitian national convicted of a firearm and two robbery offenses in the United States, appeals the denial of his habeas petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Cadet argues that the BIA’s order removing him to Haiti violates the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and the Eighth Amendment. After review, we conclude that § 2241

ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. P concur in the conclusion of the majority that Rogers’ convictions should be affirmed. As to the sentence of death, however, I respectfully dissent. I continue to adhere to my view that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the majority is inadequate to shield defendants from