Cases

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 22-3268 ____________ WILLIAM JOSEPH WEBB, JR., Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ADMINISTRATES JUSTICE; ISLANDA L. FINAMORE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL; JOELLE P. HITCH, JUDGE - FAMLY COURT, NEW CASTLE COUNTY; DIVISION OF YO

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 22-3268 ____________ WILLIAM JOSEPH WEBB, JR., Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ADMINISTRATES JUSTICE; ISLANDA L. FINAMORE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL; JOELLE P. HITCH, JUDGE - FAMLY COURT, NEW CASTLE COUNTY; DIVISION OF YO

ALETA A. TRAUGER, United States District Judge Before the court is the defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 35) Jeremy R. Durham's Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 33). For the reasons set forth herein, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff Jeremy Durham was elected to the 108th Gener

MATHESON, Circuit Judge. *1187TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND....1189 A. Factual Background....1189 B. Procedural Background....1191 II. DISCUSSION....1192 A. Issue One: Constitutionality of

129 F.Supp.2d 870 (2000) Patrick IHEKWU, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant. No. 1:99CV00420. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. December 27, 2000. *871 *872 *873 Thomas Henry Moore, Haywood Denny & Miller, L.L.P

11/25/2019 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 25, 2019 HUBERT GLENN SEXTON, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Scott County No. 10272 E. Shayne Sexton, Judge ___________________________________

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0254p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT A. K., a Minor by and Through his Parents, ┐ Guardians, and Next Friends, Timothy Kocher and │ Teresa D. Kocher; TIMOTHY KOCHER; TERESA D. │ KOCH

ACCEPTED 04-16-00508-CR FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/26/2017 5:56 PM

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In these three consolidated actions,1 Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims. (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-00079, Doc. No. 40; 2:17-cv-00080, Doc. No. 50; 2:18-cv-00022, Doc. No. 35). Those Motions have been fully briefed by the parties and, for the reasons that follow, will be granted with respect to Plaintiff

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Bridget M. McCormack Stephen J. Markman

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Bridget M. McCormack Stephen J. Markman

SV.n: vr 'Te:x..-6 QIAp!BS k. !IJ\I.QUFFI JR. § AKA • CHART IE MUOQPF § v. § CASE NO. 03~13-00723-CR Ct+A~ A.. '(\1\A,t..<>oR"; J"f<. §

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO . 13-0605 444444444444 BROWN & GAY ENGINEERING, INC., PETITIONER, v. ZULEIMA OLIVARES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PEDRO OLIVARES, JR., & PEDRO OLIVARES, RESPONDENTS 444444444444444444444444444444

ORDER This matter is before the court on the appellees’ Petition for Rehearing En *1155 Banc. Upon consideration, any implicit request for panel rehearing is denied by the original panel members. For clarification, however, the panel has decided, sua sponte,

FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 11, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker

*1198MEMORANDUM OPINION1 JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss, filed November 22, 2013 (Doc. 9)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on July 24, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether a claim exists under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to properly investig

OPINION AND ORDER P.K. HOLMES, III, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49), Plaintiff Wendall N. Sampson, Jr.’s response (Doc. 54), Defendants’ reply (Doc." 56), and the parties’ supporting documents. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ mo*878tion for summary judgment -will be grant

NEWBY, Justice. In this case we consider whether the use of the Map Act by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) resulted in a taking of certain property rights of plaintiffs without just compensation. Upon NCDOT’s recording of the highway corridor maps at issue here, the Map Act restricted plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to improve, develop, and subdivide their

ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Heather St. John [DE-208]; Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [DE-238] filed by Plaintiffs Darwin Johnson, LaTonjá D. Johnson, and Brenda Mathis; and the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE-240] filed by Defendants City of Fayetteville, Shane Koehler, Jennifer Rodri

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7679 PATRICK L. BOOKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SYLVIA JONES; ANN SHEPPARD; THIERRY NETTLES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Ch