Cases

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL XI VALERIE WILMOTH CERTIORARI PARSONS y otros procedente del Tribunal de Peticionarios Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de v.

390 S.E.2d 514 (1990) Debra Jo WILMOTH v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record No. 0926-88-1. Court of Appeals of Virginia. April 3, 1990. Robert L. Samuel, Jr. (Stephen C. Swain, Robert C.E. Laney, Clark & Stant, P.C., Virginia Beach, on brief), for appellant. Birdie H. Jamison, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellee. Pr

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 541 Appellant, Frank D. Wilmoth, was found guilty, after a bench trial, of two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of patient abuse. He was accorded two consecutive eighteen-month terms for the gross sexual imposition convictions and a concurrent six-month sentence for patient abuse. It is from these sente

Vaidik, Chief Judge. Case Summary [1] After Mary Shirey was injured in a car accident, she sought treatment from Dr. Rex Flenar. A few weeks later, Shirey's lawyer asked Dr. Flenar for her medical records. Dr. Flenar failed to respond for several years before eventually indicating that the records were destroyed by his medical-records software provider. Shirey has sued Dr. Flenar, claiming that she has a private righ

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-20-00585-CV Judy A. Guyaux, Appellant v. Aaron J. Mitchell; Jennifer K. Mitchell; Michael Mitchell; and Mary Angeline Mitchell, Appellees FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 20-1360-C425, THE HONORABLE DONNA GAYLE KING, JUDGE P

ROSEMARY LEDET, Judge. | ,This appeal involves a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (“IIED”) by a non-client, Judith Sullivan, against her adversary’s lead attorney, F Evans Schmidt.1 From the trial court’s* judgment granting Mr. Schmidt’s peremptory exception of no cause of action, Ms. Sullivan appeals.2 The narrow issue presented is whether, in

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00417-CV Paul M. Werchan and Mary A. Werchan, Appellants v. Lakewood Estates Association, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-06-003980, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINIO

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00417-CV Paul M. Werchan and Mary A. Werchan, Appellants v.

ROSEMARY LEDET, Judge. 11 This is a defamation case. This case arises out of litigation in which the plaintiff, Madro Bandaries, and the defendants, F. Evans Schmidt and his law firm (Koch and Schmidt, LLC) (collectively “Mr. Schmidt”), were opposing counsel. Mr. Bandaries alleges that Mr. Schmidt defamed him at a deposition by posing offensive questions to the deponent, Judith Sullivan. Ms. Sullivan was both Mr. Ban-darie

717 N.W.2d 280 (2006) 2006 WI 88 NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, Midwest Airlines, Inc., Intervening Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant. No. 2004AP319. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Argued December 13, 2005. Decided July 7, 2006.

PER CURIAM: The defendant/petitioner, Lisa Marie Davis (hereinafter “Ms. Davis”), appeals a circuit court order affirming a magistrate court’s ruling that she obstructed a police officer in violation of W.Va.Code § 61-5-17(a) [2001].1 Ms. Davis admits that she lied to a police officer during the course of a felony investigation and admits that the false statement she gave was a violation o

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc RACHEL SENDER, ) Opinion issued January 9, 2024 ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SC100110 ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS, )

CHAMBERS, District Judge, dissenting: The BOP has exceeded its statutory authority by interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) in a manner inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and contrary to settled law. The BOP’s misinterpretation of its governing statute, in both its original regulations and the 1997 revisions, reveals a misunderstanding of the proper exercise of the BOP’s discretion. Both the ma

Justice SCALIA, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join Justice THOMAS's opinion. I write separately to note that modern Restatements-such as the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (2010), which both opinions address in their discussions of the disgorgement remedy-are of questionable value, and must be used with caution. The object of the original Restatements was "t

CHAMBERS, District Judge, dissenting: The BOP has exceeded its statutory authority by interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) in a manner inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and contrary to settled law. The BOP’s misinterpretation of its governing statute, in both its original and newly revised regulations, reveals a misunderstanding of the proper exercise of the BOP’s discretion. Both the majori

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge Appellant Steven Blackwood appeals after the Washington County Circuit Court filed an order terminating his parental rights to B.H. (DOB 11-20-2016).1 Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights because the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to meet its burden of proof and comply with court orders. We affirm.

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION ONE CHRISTOPHER SCHMITZ, ) No. ED112719 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the City of St. Louis v. ) Ca

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § KENNETH R. LYLE and LINDA L. MORRISON, Individually and as Trustee of § No. 08-19-00216-CV the RUTH MARY LOCKE BARD TRUST, § Appeal from the

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS In Re: A.G. & D.G. FILED November 24, 2014 No. 14-0552 (Randolph County 13-JA-18 & 13-JA-19) RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED SWVA, Inc., December 2, 2022 Employer Below, Petitioner EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS vs.) No. 22-ICA-57 (BOR: 2058060)