Cases

902 A.2d 636 (2006) 279 Conn. 414 STATE of Connecticut v. Arthur LUSTER, Jr. No. 17268. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued March 14, 2006. Decided August 15, 2006. *643 George G. Kouros, special public defender, with whom were Cyd O. Oppenheimer and, on the brief, Richard A. Reeve and Mi

Appellate Case: 23-3074 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 11/19/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 19, 2024

768 N.E.2d 513 (2002) Eric L. WALES, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 31A01-0107-CR-279. Court of Appeals of Indiana. May 28, 2002. *516 Matthew Jon McGovern, Louisville, Kentucky, Attorney For Appellant. Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Attorney Gene

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 249 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 250 ¶ 1. Lilliana Maldonado was indicted by a grand jury in Rankin County, Mississippi, for possession of more than thirty gr

108 Ill. App.3d 751 (1982) 439 N.E.2d 1264 In re ESTATE OF DANIEL F. RICE, Deceased. — (RICE FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DANIEL F. RICE, JR., et al., Defendants-Appellees. — (CHARLES D. DONALDSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees).) No. 82-194. Illinois Appellate Court — Second District. Opinion filed September 1, 1982.

121 S.W.3d 220 (2003) Larry HAMPTON, Respondent, v. BIG BOY STEEL ERECTION, Appellant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Insurer, Treasurer Of The State Of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party. No. SC 85456. Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc. December 9, 2003. *221 Bradley L. McChesney, St.

617 F.Supp. 1093 (1985) Allie K. McCORD; Joseph Powell, Jr.; Rose Marie Saulsby; Ilma M. James; Margaret Harden; Alzen F. Floyd, Sr.; and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) of Broward County, Florida, on Behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA; Robert A. Dressler, Mayor of Fort Lauderdale; Robert O. Cox, Vice-Mayor; Virginia S. Young, Mayor Pro-Tem; Commission Member

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge. Jeffrey T. Lange and his father, George T. Lange, appeal from a jury verdict rendered in this diversity case in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.1 The jury found the defendants, *124Dr. Richard D. Schultz, Dr. S. Patrick Adley, and Anesthesia Associates, a corporation, not

243 Ga. 291 (1979) 253 S.E.2d 729 COLLINS v. THE STATE. 33879. Supreme Court of Georgia. Argued September 12, 1978. Decided March 6, 1979. Rehearing Denied March 27, 1979. Aultman, Moore & Daly, James J. Daly, Jr., for appellant. Stephen Pace, Jr., District Attorney, Miriam D. Wansley, As

627 F.2d 122 Jeffrey T. LANGE, a Minor, by and through his Father andNext Friend, George T. Lange, and George T. Lange,Individually, Appellants,v.Richard D. SCHULTZ, S. Patrick Adley, Individually andAnesthesia Associates, P. C., a ProfessionalCorporation, Appellees. No. 79-1949. United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit. Submitted May 22, 198

912 F.Supp. 892 (1996) Beth PEDERSON, et al. v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, et al. No. CV94-247-A-MI. United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana, Baton Rouge Division. January 12, 1996. *893 *894 *895 *896

O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge. In No. 18,357, Tennessee Products & Chemical Corporation seeks review, and in No. 18,463 the National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of, a decision of the National Labor Relations Board whereby petitioner, Tennessee Products and respondents Basham Coal Company, et al., were found guilty of violating Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S..C. § 158(a) (

MOTLEY, District Judge (concurring in part, dissenting in part). In these consolidated cases plaintiffs challenge, on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, certain New York statutes which contain the criteria for determining eligibility for admission to the bar.1 One of these statutes provides that an applicant shall be admitted if the admitting

11 F.Supp. 976 (1935) RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION v. CENTRAL REPUBLIC TRUST CO. No. 14189. District Court, N. D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 13, 1935. *977 *978 John L. Hopkins, O. John Rogge, James A. Sprowl, Floyd M. Rett, and George E. McMurray, all of Chicago, Ill., and James

*ALLEN, J. It is objected in this case that the bond upon which the proceeding was had, is void on account of its uncertainty; or if not, and if all the obligors are to be treated as deputy sheriffs, this proceeding cannot be sustained, because the remedy by notice is given by the statute against the deputy and his sureties, and not against one deputy for the default of another deputy. As to the first question there would seem to b

Allen, J. It is objected in this case that the bond llPon- which the proceeding was had, is void on ac-of its uncertainty; or if not, and if all the oblig0rg are ■jje ^rea^e¿ ag deputy sheriffs, this proceed-^n§ cami(A be sustained, because the remedy by notice is given by the statute against the deputy and his sureties, and not against one deputy for the default of another deputy. As to the first question there would seem

Allen, J. It is objected in this case that the bond llPon- which the proceeding was had, is void on ac-of its uncertainty; or if not, and if all the oblig0rg are ■jje ^rea^e¿ ag deputy sheriffs, this proceed-^n§ cami(A be sustained, because the remedy by notice is given by the statute against the deputy and his sureties, and not against one deputy for the default of another deputy. As to the first question there would seem

Allen, J. It is objected in this case that the bond llPon- which the proceeding was had, is void on ac-of its uncertainty; or if not, and if all the oblig0rg are ■jje ^rea^e¿ ag deputy sheriffs, this proceed-^n§ cami(A be sustained, because the remedy by notice is given by the statute against the deputy and his sureties, and not against one deputy for the default of another deputy. As to the first question there would seem

265 F.Supp. 388 (1967) George RAMSEY et al., Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Defendant. TENNESSEE PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA and West Kentucky Coal Company, Defendants. Civ. A. Nos. 3667, 4189. United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, S. D. March 4, 1967.

17 F.Supp. 263 (1936) RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION v. CENTRAL REPUBLIC TRUST CO. et al. No. 14189. District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D. November 7, 1936. *264 *265 *266 John L. Hopkins, O. John Rogge, James A. Sprowl, George F. James, Jr., Floyd M. R