Cases

815 F.Supp. 494 (1993) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Julius HARRISON, Defendant. Crim. No. 90-393(02) (CRR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 10, 1993. *495 Cathleen M. Corken, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Jay B. Stephens, U.S. Atty. for the District of Columbia, was on the brief, for United Stat

GRIFFIS, P.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶ 1. Julius Scott Turner appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCCR). We find no error and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2. On February 11, 2014, Turner entered a guilty plea to Count I, possession of a controlled substance with intent, and Count II, unlawful possession o

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ <

OPINION AND ORDER PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on two motions of Claimant Pavel Lazarenko, a.k.a. Pavlo Lazarenko (“Lazarenko”), for leave to amend his answer to the amended complaint to make four changes: (1) admit rather than deny one allegation; (2) supplement his due process affirmative defense; (3) a

34 Cal.App.4th 1072 (1995) 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 672 NATIONAL R.V., INC., Defendant and Appellant, v. JULIUS E. FOREMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents. Docket No. D018336. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. May 4, 1995. *1074 COUNSEL Wright, Robinson, McCammon, Osthimer &am;

Petition for habeas corpus is denied as moot.

695 F.Supp.2d 1263 (2010) Darrel CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, v. Warden Duffie HARRISON, et al., Defendants. Case No. 4:07cv428-RH/WCS. United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division. February 7, 2010. *1265 Darrel Cummings, Mayo, FL, pro se. Joe Belitzky, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants. ORDER

DECISION ARROWOOD, Judge: The Specification of Charge I alleges that the accused attempted to violate Air Force Regulation 30-2, dated 8 November 1976, by wrongfully selling cocaine. This regulation only prohibits the sale of nonnarcotic drugs that are habit-forming or have a potential for abuse because of their stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect. This category includes but is not limited to:

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 221 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISIONS IV & I No. CV-24-590 JULIUS WILLIAMS Opinion Delivered April 8, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2007-CT-01736-SCT JULIUS WILLIAMS, II v. BARBARA WILLIAMS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/07/2007 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. SANFORD R. STECKLER COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: HERBERT J. STELLY, JR. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:

MEMORANDUM OPINION G. MICHAEL HARVEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case was referred to the undersigned for the management of discovery. Currently ripe is the United States’ motion for protective order relating to Claimant Pavel Lazarenko’s discovery requests concerning a failed 2002 plea agreement in Claimant’s criminal case and the government’s mutual

Order JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, JR., District Judge. Barry A. Harrison, Wesley T. Roach, and Dwayne M. Hawkins (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., against their employer, South Carolina Department of Mental Health (“Defendant”). In accordance with 28 U.S.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 327 {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Bernice Faseyitan appeals the decision of the Mahoning County Probate Court that upheld a magistrate's decision finding her guilty of concealing assets and ordering her to pay $22,122.35 to plaintiff-appellee Michael Harrison Sr., the guardian of the estate of Elaine Bush. Appellant

ORDER VINING, District Judge. This action came before the court upon the unanimous request of all parties to VACATE the court’s orders of September 27 and 30, 1982, since the case has now been settled. After hearing from counsel for the parties, the court hereby vacates its orders of September 27 and 30. See Georgia v. The Harrison Company, 548 F.Supp. 110 (N.D.Ga.1982).

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge: Defendant-appellant Julius C. Bomar (Bo-mar) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for violation of a provision of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 (the Act), 50 U.S.C.app. § 535(2), (3). Bomar was convicted of enforcing and attempting to enforce, without seeking court approval, a lien for storage of a 1985

Suit in detinue by Julius McHugh as executor of the last will of Mildred McHugh Harrison, deceased, against Eugene G. Harrison, to recover an Oldsmobile automobile in possession of defendant. Defendant and testate were husband and wife, and they had two children. Plaintiff (executor) was the brother of the testate. By the terms of the will of Mrs. Harrison all her property was left to these children. The plaintiff, appellant, rested his right of recovery on the claim that Mildr

Per Curiam. The only eyewitnesses to the accident were the two drivers. Their testimony was conflicting. The court reviewed the evidence, explained the law arising thereon, and gave proper instructions as to the burden of proof on each of the issues. Nothing in the record indicates the jury could have been confused or misled. The case involved a simple question: Which driver crossed over into the other’s traffic lane, thus causin

OPINION GRANTING CLARIFICATION In the interests of finality and clarity, the following is entered by this Court addressing once again the prolonged litigation to enforce a writ of mandamus filed by Petitioners Dale Tsosie and Hank Whitet-home against the Navajo Board of Election Supervisors (Board) and the Navajo Election Administration (NEA). Based upon the review of the recent motions filed with the Co

Scherer, J. S. C. The complaint in this case was filed by the first named plaintiff, in lieu of prerogative writs, to test the constitutionality of L. 1959, c. 119 (N. J. 8. 2A:171-5.8 et seq.), and for a judgment declaring it to be invalid. A permanent injunction against the enforcement of any of its provisions is requested. The other plaintiff was permitted to intervene, and its complaint seeks simil

32 N.J. 199 (1960) 160 A.2d 265 TWO GUYS FROM HARRISON, INC., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND CHANNEL LUMBER CO., A CORPORATION, INTERVENING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DAVID D. FURMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET ALS., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued December 22, 1959. Decided April 4, 1960.