Cases

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0225p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ IN RE: FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION SECURITIES │ LITIGATION.

Kennedy, J., dissenting. {¶ 58} Respectfully, I dissent. In affirming the decision of the Power Siting Board, the majority concludes that appellants failed to demonstrate that the “board’s decision was unreasonable or unlawful.” Majority opinion at ¶ 57. In my view, the board’s decision to grant the certificate was unreasonable and unlawful because the blade-throw setbacks that the board adopted and the default

577 F.Supp.2d 293 (2008) Diane J. SCHROER, Plaintiff, v. James H. BILLINGTON, Librarian of Congress, Defendant. Civil Action No. 05-1090 (JR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 19, 2008. *294 Arthur B. Spitzer, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, James D. Esseks, Kenneth Y. Choe, Sharon M.

Kennedy, J. {¶ 1} In 2008, defendant-appellant, Anthony Belton, robbed a gas-station convenience store and murdered Matthew Dugan, the attendant working in the store. Belton entered a no-contest plea to charges of aggravated robbery and aggravated murder with capital specifications, and a three-judge panel sentenced him to death. {¶ 2} Belton’s appeal of

829 A.2d 992 (2003) 376 Md. 359 Michael Darnell COLLINS v. STATE of Maryland. No. 70, Sept. Term, 2002. Court of Appeals of Maryland. August 4, 2003. *993 Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Assistant Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.

*351 The opinion of the court was delivered by Biles, J.: This is a class action for underpayment of royalties claimed under 25 oil and gas leases entered into between 1944 and 1991. The controversy arises because the lessee-operator sells its raw natural gas at the wellhead t

798 A.2d 1093 (2002) 2002 ME 93 STATE of Maine v. Robert PINEO. No. Cum-01-707. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued: April 2, 2002. Decided: June 7, 2002. *1095 Stephanie Anderson, District Attorney, Julia Sheridan, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Portland, for State. Edmond Folsom,

675 F.Supp.2d 992 (2009) Darnell FOSTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants. This Document Relates To: James Taylor, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Oakland, et al., Defendants. Jimmy Rider, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Oakland, et al., Defendants. Tyrone Moore, Plaintiff, v. City of Oakland, et al., Defendants. Jeffrie Miller, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Oakland, et al, Defendants.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Ames v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trustees, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4605.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any

889 A.2d 325 (2005) 390 Md. 343 Frederick James MOORE v. STATE of Maryland. No. 28, September Term, 2004. Court of Appeals of Maryland. December 14, 2005. Reconsideration Denied February 3, 2006. *327 Julia M. Kazaks, Assigned Public Defender (W. Bradley Ney, Albert H. Turkus, and Kenneth

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Maddox, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-764.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or

Because I believe the trial judge did not err in refusing to instruct the jury as requested by the defendant, I must respectfully dissent. Punishing a defendant for unintentionally causing the death of another while in the commission of a misdemeanor is not a new legal concept, in either a criminal case or a civil case. For example, in Pippin v. State,19 Ala. App. 384, 387, 97 So. 615<

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Boaston, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1061.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical

862 So.2d 947 (2004) Andrea M. KLAK and Kenneth P. Klak, wife and husband; Warren L. Garland and Dorothea T. Garland, husband and wife; Jack B. Slorah and Patricia M. Slorah, husband and wife; James R. Cobb and Gloria S. Cobb, husband and wife; Thomas J. Ciriello, Susan Light, Hans Walter Selig, and Anastasia R. Seelig, co-trustees; David P. Kennedy and Susan M. Kennedy, husband and wife; Bruno Gallelli and Maria Gallelli, husband and wife; Carl Conrad;

124 P.3d 434 (2005) CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawai`i, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Kathleen HSIUNG; James B. Shaw, Trustee under that certain James B. Shaw Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated June 4, 1990; Ruth G. Rand, Trustee under that certain unrecorded Ruth G. Rand Revocable Trust Agreement dated May 30, 1986; Deborah Darlene Dupire-Nelson; Robert Lee Dupire-Nelson; Ira

ORDER This matter originated in this Court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education (the “Commission”) pursuant to Gov. Bar R. X, Sec. 6, Div. (A)(1)(b) and Div. (A)(2)(d). The Commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys and judges, including the above-named respondent, for failure to comply with the applicable continuing legal education provisions of Gov. Bar R. X and Gov. J

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (2021 NY Slip Op 05388) BODY { font-family : "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size : larger; } P { line-height: 150%; text-indent: 2em } Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law  468-a

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 02-2708 SHAHID SHAIKH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, JULIA STASCH, and DAVID SALTZMAN, Defendants-Appellees. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court f

2 F.Supp.2d 997 (1997) MEMPHIS PLANNED PARENTHOOD, INC. v. Donald SUNDQUIST, et al. No. 3:89-0520. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Divison. August 27, 1997. *998 *999 Irwin Bruce Venick, Dobbins & Venick, Nashville, TN, Barbara E. Otten, Dara Klassell, Roger K. Evan

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (2022 NY Slip Op 05127) Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a 2022 NY Slip Op 05127 Decided on September 1, 2022 Appellate Division, Third Department Published