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 “Leavy v. Turner”
Turner V. Sullivanpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Edward L. Turner, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s application of substantive law de novo and review for clear
Turner V. Sullivanpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Edward L. Turner, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s application of substantive law de novo and review for clear
United States v. Turnerpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** William Vance Turner appeals from the 192-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Turner contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was confused as to whether he could appeal the denial of pre-trial motions. Howe
Turner v. Villasenorpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** California State prisoner Anthony R. Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety and medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 105
Lydon v. Turner Construction Co.public domain
MEMORANDUM ** Cathy L. Lydon appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to vacate an arbitration award in favor of her former employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Coutee v. Barington Capital Group, L.P., 336 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2003), and affirm. The district court properly concluded that Lydon’s rescission argument
Lydon v. Turner Construction Co.public domain
MEMORANDUM ** Cathy L. Lydon appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to vacate an arbitration award in favor of her former employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Coutee v. Barington Capital Group, L.P., 336 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2003), and affirm. The district court properly concluded that Lydon’s rescission argument
Turner v. Roepublic domain
MEMORANDUM** California state prisoner Larry Turner appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which challenges his convictions for second-degree robbery and evading a police officer. Because Turner’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (
Turner v. Custom Service USpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Bernadette T. Turner appeals pro se the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of her action against the United States Customs Service, which she alleges failed to provide her with copies they have of her important inheritance papers. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Polaris Pictures Corp., 159 F.3d 412, 418 (9th Cir.1998). We agree
CLARENCE HOWARD LEAVY, IV v. AMANDA CORNELIUSpublic domain
THIRD DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MARKLE and PADGETT, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules August 26, 2025
819 F.Supp. 32 (1993) TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. DANIELS CABLEVISION, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al.,
810 F.Supp. 1308 (1992) TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. DANIELS CABLEVISION, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al
CANBY, Circuit Judge: We are presented with the recurring question of where a newspaper and its writer can be sued for the alleged publication of a libel. Berry Gordy, a resident of California and the *831 founder of Motown Records, brought a defamation action in California against The New York Dail
*744 OPINION OF THE COURT LEWIS, Circuit Judge. Jerome K. Hamilton appeals from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss Ms civil suit, litigated pro se. Hamilton brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Faith Levy, Pamela Faulkner, William Q
Leavy v. Saunderspublic domain
319 A.2d 44 (1974) Julia LEAVY et al., Plaintiffs, v. John SAUNDERS, Defendant. Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle. April 8, 1974. *45 Richard Allen Paul, Wilmington, for plaintiffs. Morton Richard Kimmel, Wilmington, for defendant. OPINION ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO DISMISS TAYLOR, Judge. Plaintiffs were
United States v. Eric Germaine Turnerpublic domain
59 F.3d 177NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Eric Germaine TURNER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-50198. United States
LEAVY, Circuit Judge: Clifton Redman was raped while confined at the South Bay Detention Facility, a jail operated by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. Redman brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County and various jail officials and employees. The district court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants. The court determined that Redman had failed to present eviden
Sherman, Clay & Co. v. Turnerpublic domain
HOLCOMB, J., dissents. *Page 258 On September 10, 1926, the respondent and the defendant Washington Idaho Theatres, Inc., entered into a written conditional sale contract whereby the former agreed to sell and the latter agreed to purchase a pipe organ for the sum of $4,892, to be paid in monthly installments. The defendant Will Starkey and the appellant George Turner guaranteed the payments specified in the contract. The Theatres Company failed to meet t
906 F.2d 1384 Clifton REDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; Capt. Richard Beall; Lt. RobertWitcraft; Sgt. Dan Canfield; Deputy Gene Turner,and Does I through XX, Inclusive,Defendants-Appellees. No. 87-6139. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. July 11, 1990. ORDER
Turner v. Begleypublic domain
Reversing. In its origin this was a partition proceeding, but it was early transformed into a controversy over the title to the tract of land sought to be divided. On October 16, 1873, Farris Begley and wife executed a deed by which the land in controversy was conveyed to their son, Leander Begley. The consideration expressed in the deed was "four hundred dollars to them in hand paid by note and for said Leander Begley's dowery in Farris Begley's estate." The grantee, Leander Begley, w
Turner v. Tapscottpublic domain
Walker, J.: Tapscott, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of Adam McPherson, brought his action of assumpsit against Turner for money collected by him, on debts due the estate of McPherson. To this action defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, set' off, payment and tender. Issue was taken upon the plea of non assumpsit, and a demurrer was sustained to the other pleas. The case was submitted