Cases

FAIR, J., for the Court: ¶ 1. Before this Court for review is the enforcement of an agreed judgment. It was clearly within the chancellor’s authority to consider the intent of the parties in entering into the agreed judgment and to fashion a way to carry out that intent. Reluctantly, however, we must reverse and remand for the chancery court to join Bel-issa Powell as a necessary party, after her mother, J

Sikora, J. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Joanne Powell, Administratrix of the Estate of Mary Ann Culiinane (the plaintiff), has brought a Motion for Summary Judgment upon Esther K. Stevens’ and David P. Stevens’ (the defendants’) counterclaim for slander of title. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the filing of a lis pendens memorandum in connection with a claim affecting the tit

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00500-CV Mary Ann JOHNSON, Appellant v. Chandler Elizabeth JOHNSON and Mary M. Johnson,

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc MARY ELIZABETH ANNE COLEMAN, ) Opinion issued September 20, 2024 KATHLEEN ANNE FORCK, HANNAH ) SUE KELLY AND MARGUERITE ) ANN “PEGGY” FORREST, ) ) Respondents, ) ) v. ) No. SC100742 ) JOHN R. ASHCROFT,

IVERS, Judge: The veteran appeals from a May 15, 1998, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) decision which denied an increased rating for a low back disability, evaluated as 10% disabling prior to January 1995 and as 20% disabling from January 1995. Record (R.) at 11-12. The veteran’s claims for a disability rating prior to January 5, 1995, in excess of 10% for a low back disability, and a rating under a diagnostic code (DC

JJDIACCIO, Judge. This case was previously before this Court on an appeal of the Regional Transit Authority (“RTA”) from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) rendered in plaintiffs favor following a bifurcated trial. We set aside the JNOV, and reinstated the jury verdict. Plaintiff applied for writs from this decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the jury trial was improperly called

297 S.W.3d 918 (2009) Jimmy Howard POWELL, Appellant, v. Lillie Ann POWELL, Respondent. No. ED 92401. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three. October 13, 2009. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 16, 2009. Application for Transfer Denied December 22, 2009. Susan K. Roach, Meliss

990 F.Supp. 541 (1998) Mary Anne Prescott POWELL, Plaintiff, v. SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY, et al., Defendants. No. C2-97-380. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. January 14, 1998. *542 Bernard D. Mazer, Dublin, OH, for Plaintiff. John W. Zeiger, Zeiger & Carpenter, Columbus, OH, for defendant

[Cite as Powell v. Williams, 2022-Ohio-526.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA SOPHIA POWELL, ET AL., : Plaintiffs-Appellants, : No. 110536 v. : ERIC BRANDON WILLIAMS, ET AL.,

OPINION Opinion by Justice Myers Edward James Powell filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying the request of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability that he be transferred from a residential care facility to a group home. Appellant brings three issues on appeal contending (1) this Court has jurisdiction to hear his appeal; (2) the trial court erred by denying the

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.

320 Ga. 221 FINAL COPY S24A0591. WILLIAMS et al. v. POWELL et al. ELLINGTON, Justice. After being arrested and charged with violating OCGA § 16-11- 34.1, which criminalizes conduct that is likely to disrupt meetings and other official business of the General Assembly and its members and employees, the appellants in this case brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would prevent any enforcement of that Code section.1 The a

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § Mary Ann Bridges, § No. 08-21-00130-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v. § 112th District Court Lorrie Uhl, Individually and as Trustee of

333 Pa. Superior Ct. 48 (1984) 481 A.2d 1215 Elizabeth Ann ALLISON, The Executrix of the Estate of Harold N. Allison, Deceased, Appellant, v. Robert O. POWELL and Mary Jane Powell. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 13, 1984. Filed September 21, 1984. *49 William R. Keen, Jr., Coatesville, for app

MEMORANDUM & ORDER MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge: On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff Mychael Powell, proceeding pro se, commenced this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Defendant Delta Airlines, his former employer.1 (Compl., Docket Entry No. 2.) By Transfer Order dated May 4, 2015, the action was transferred

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM E. POWELL, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 18-847 (JEB) SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION In this latest of his multiple suits, pro se Plaintiff William E. Powell seeks relief for Defendant Social Security Administration

OPINION John A. Gibney, Jr., United States District Judge This products liability action arises from a fatal incident at Museum Resource & Construction & Millwork, Inc. Jose Rodriguez died when a ripsaw produced a “kickback” sending a sliver of wood out of the machine, which struck Rodriguez in the head. Rodriguez’s estate (“Rodriguez”) now seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the producer of

VOIGT, Justice. [T1] This is an appeal from a larceny conviction. Because there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed larceny, we reverse. ISSUE [¶2] The appellant has raised four issues in this appeal, but we will resolve only the single dispositive issue: was the evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doub

Larry D. Vaught, Judge, dissenting. I agree with the majority that the issue in this case is whether the marriage of Jason Powell and Davelynn Lane was valid. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that it was. Recognizing our court’s ability to affirm the trial court even if we disagree -with its reasoning, Wedin v. Wedin, 57 Ark. App. 203, 944 S.W.2d 847 (1997), I would hold that the trial co

261 S.E.2d 114 (1980) 299 N.C. 95 STATE of North Carolina v. James Alonzo POWELL. No. 114. Supreme Court of North Carolina. January 8, 1980. *116 Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen. Joan H. Byers, Raleigh, for the State. Mary Ann Tally, Public Defender, and James R. Parish, Asst. Public