Cases

OSCN Found Document:IN THE MATTER OF V.J.R. Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case Print Only

OSCN Found Document:IN THE MATTER OF V.J.R. Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case Print Only

IN THE MATTER OF V.J.R.2024 OK 66Case Number: 120844; Comp. w/120910Decided: 09/24/2024THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2024 OK 66, __ P.3d __ In the matter of V.J.R. (a/k/a F.M.), a d

Filed 11/25/25 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA TAKING OFFENSE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. S270535 Third Appellate District C088485 Sacramento County Superior Court 34-2017-80002749-C

Filed 7/16/21; See concurring opinions CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- TAKING OFFENSE, C088485 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2017

811 A.2d 414 (2002) 174 N.J. 583 STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Monica L. FRISBY, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued October 7, 2002. Decided December 11, 2002. *416 Abby P. Schwartz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith Segars,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BURT CAMENZIND, an individual, No. 22-15931 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:19-cv-00632- MCE-AC CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION AND STATE FAIR; RICK PICKERING, in his official capacity as General OPINION Manager of California Exposit

Case: 12-14009 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Page: 1 of 82 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 12-14009 _______________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-22026-MGC DR. BERND WOLLSCHLAEGER, DR. JUDITH SCHAECHTER, DR. TOMMY SCHECHTMAN, AMERIC

*81Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BUCKLEY. Dissenting opinion filed by District Judge JOHN W. REYNOLDS. BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge: The district court has sustained appel-lees’ ** First Amendment challenge to the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, as amended, and its impleme

ACCEPTED 03-14-00375-CV 4213371 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

OPINION Justice Robinson, for the Court. These consolidated cases come before the Supreme Court on an, appeal and on a petition, for the issuance of a writ of certio-rari to review a November 5, 2015 bench decision in Providence County Superior Court in favor of the plaintiff, John R. Grasso.1 The defendants, Gina R

Justice LONG, concurring. At issue in this appeal is the propriety of the trial court’s issuance, sua sponte, of a voluntary intoxication instruction, over the objection of defense counsel who claimed that the instruction was unwarranted on the evidence and negatively impacted his trial strategy. Defendant was convicted of sexual offenses against a child and the Appellate Division, over a dissent,

332 F.Supp.2d 1217 (2004) Harlan J. JACOBSEN, d/b/a Country Singles, Single Scene and Jacobsen Distribution, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; State of Iowa; Steven F. McMenamin, Rest Area Administrator, in that capacity and as an individual; Will Zitterich, Office of Maintenance, DOT, in that capacity and as an individual; Thomas J. Vilsack, Governor of Iowa, in that capacity and as an individual; Mark Hunacek, as an individual, Defend

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *195AND ORDER1 SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION New York City and forty-two New York counties have brought suit against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and subsidiaries alleging Medicaid fraud in violation of the federal Best Prices Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA TAKING OFFENSE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. S270535 Third Appellate District C088485 Sacramento County Superior Court 34-2017-80002749-CU-WM-GDS November 6, 2025

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion *1227to Dismiss Plaintiffs First and Fourth Amendment Claims on the Basis of Qualified Immunity, filed March 6, 2014 (Doc. 24)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on October 23, 20

SCOTLAND, P. J., Dissenting. As will soon become apparent, I strongly disagree with the majority’s analysis—an analysis that should be terrifying to any person who drives on a freeway. As the parties and the trial court recognized, this case poses a relatively straightforward question. Is a freeway overpass a public forum that demonstrators can use to communicate their message to freeway motorists passing below

18 F.3d 1043 Daniel D. RAPPA, Sr.v.NEW CASTLE COUNTY; Dennis E. Greenhouse; Robert W.O'Brien; John C. Carney, Jr.; Mark A.Kleinschmidt; William S. McIntyre, Appellants.Daniel D. RAPPA, Sr.v.STATE OF DELAWARE; Department of Transportation of theState of Delaware; Kermit H. Justice,* Ann Canby, Secretary, in her officialcapacity, and Kermit H. Justice, i

N0. 01-14-01004-CV IN THE FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS FIRST COURT OF APPEAL HOUSTON, TEXAS AT HOUSTON 10/22/2015 4:44:20 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE ___________________________ Clerk Kevin CAMPBELL,

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit