Cases

Janice Rena Prescott ("the mother") appeals from a judgment of the Covington Circuit Court that modified the custody of the parties' two minor children ("the children") by transferring it from the mother to John David Prescott ("the father"). We affirm. The parties divorced in August 2005. The divorce judgment awarded the mother primary physical custody of the children and awarded the father certain visitation rights. On September 20, 2006, the father filed a "petition for ex p

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 8, 2004 Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 8, 2004. In The

Affirmed.

205 P.3d 416 (2008) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony G. PRESCOTT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 05CA1380. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. VI. August 7, 2008. Rehearing Denied September 18, 2008. *418 John W. Suthers, Attorney General, John Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Sean Moynih

*690KING, Circuit Judge, concurring: I must agree that the scheme now encompassed in section 2255 does not permit the tolling of the period of limitations during the pendency of a motion for new trial, and I also agree that the facts underlying Prescott’s appeal do not permit the equitable tolling of the limitations period here. I write separately onl

OPINION WINTHROP, Presiding Judge. ¶ 1 Before a public entity properly can be sued for damages, a notice of claim that complies in all respects with Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-821.011 first must be served. Pertinent to this appeal, the statute requires the claimant to provide a sum-certain offer that, if accepted, will settle the claim. In this opinion, we

123 S.W.3d 506 (2003) Lisa PRESCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 04-02-00527-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. October 15, 2003. *509 John D. Herrick, Attorney At Law, Raul Cantu, Attorney At Law, San Antonio, for Appellant. Kerrisa J. Chelkowski, Asst. Criminal Dist. Atty., San Antonio, for A

MEMORANDUM ** Russell Theodore Prescott, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when a prison dentist implanted “micro-systems” into his jaw. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.

OPINION OF THE COURT Marianne Furfure, J. Defendant has been charged in this indictment with two counts of felony driving while intoxicated (DWI), one count of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, two counts of attempted felony DWI, one count of attempted aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, and one count of unauthorized use of a motor veh

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

OPINION OF THE COURT Scudder, J. In this case of first impression in this State, the People appeal from an order of County Court that granted that part of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss those counts of the indictment charging defendant with attempted driving while intoxicated per se (Penal Law § 110.00; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), attempted driving while intoxicated (Penal Law § 110.00; Ve

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether the district court properly enhanced the defendant’s sentence for illegal possession of a firearm under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), which allows a 4-level enhancement for using or possessing a firearm in connection with a different felony offense than the offense of conviction, and (2) whether the district court

THOMAS, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs claim that the City of Prescott and its elected officials violated their civil rights by depriving them of the opportunity to petition for a city-wide referendum challenging certain real property transfers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. I In October 1995

Mercure, J. Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered August 23, 1993 in Albany County, which, inter alia, granted the cross *1066motion of defendants Paul Calcagno, Angela Calcagno and My Daddy’s Restaurant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Defendants Paul Calcagno and Angela Calcagno are t

The defendant, James C. Prescott, M.D., appeals from a $750,000 default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Lucia C. Baker1 and her husband Herchel Baker. The issue is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Dr. Prescott's Rule 55(c), *Page 879 Ala.R.Civ.P., motion to set aside the default judgment. In August 1990, the Bakers brought this medical malpractice action again

893 F.2d 1326 Prescott (David Allen)v.McKenna (John, Governor) NO. 89-1316 United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit. NOV 08, 1989 1 Appeal From: D.Me. 2 VACATED. <

858 F.Supp. 1461 (1994) Keith L. PRESCOTT, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. And All Consolidated Cases. No. CV-S-80-143-PMP (LRL). United States District Court, D. Nevada. July 19, 1994. *1462 *1463 *1464 Dale Haralson, Tucson, AZ, Ala

631 F.3d 1117 (2011) R.P., husband on behalf of his minor son, C.P.; J.P., wife, on behalf of her minor son, C.P., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PRESCOTT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, an Arizona School District; Kevin J. Kapp, Superintendent, Prescott Unified School District; John Does, I-V; Jane Does, I-V; Black and White Corporations, I-X, Defendants-Appellees. R.P., husband on behalf of his minor son, C.P.; J.P., wife, on behalf of her minor son, C

708 A.2d 283 (1998) 1998 ME 70 POTTER, PRESCOTT, JAMIESON & NELSON, P.A. v. John S. CAMPBELL et al. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued September 4, 1997. Decided April 3, 1998. *284 Thomas S. Coward, (Orally), Potter, Prescott, Jamieson & Nelson, P.A., Saco, for plaintiff. John S. Campb

RANDOLPH, Presiding Justice, for the Court: ¶ 1. John McAdams, in his official capacity as Chancery Clerk of Harrison County (hereinafter referred to as the Chancery Clerk), was appointed guardian of Sybil Bowden and Jonathan Dunn. The Chancery Clerk filed suit against The Peoples Bank of Biloxi, Mississippi (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), alleging gro