Cases

PER CURIAM. Marty Ingram (the former husband) raises three issues on appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment and for rehearing, which he filed in response to the trial court’s judgments granting appellee, Mary Peters Ingram (the former wife), attorney’s fees and costs. We find that one of the Former Husband’s issues has merit, and reverse and remand without addressing his other claims of

PER CURIAM. Marty Ingram, the former husband, appeals the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He raises several issues, only one of which has merit. Specifically, we agree with the former husband that the trial court erred in awarding the former wife $2,500 in attorneys’ fees without making the required findings. Consequently, we reverse as to the attorneys’ fees issue but affirm all other aspects of the

Alcala, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Newell, J., joined. I concur in this Court’s judgment that upholds the judgment of the court of appeals. I, however, do not join this Court’s majority opinion for two reasons. First, I do not agree with the portion of the majority opinion’s analysis as to the non-cogniza-bility of some of the claims in the pretrial habeas application filed by Adam Wayne

JUDGEMENT DONALD E. WALTER, District Judge. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge having been considered, together with the written objections thereto filed with this Courts, and, after a de *554novo review of the record, finding that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is correct and that judgment as

CARLEY, Presiding Justice. After a jury trial, Appellant Herman Ingram was found guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for the murder count and five years to be served consecutively for the weapons offense. The aggravated assault count merged into the felony murder c

888 N.E.2d 520 (2008) The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant. No. 1-06-1954. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division. April 11, 2008. Rehearing Denied June 5, 2008. *521 Patricia Unsinn of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chica

PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in In re Redmond, _ N.C. _, _ S.E.2d _(Mar. 17, 2017) (No. 86A16), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

1. Claimant’s Notice .of Appeal Based Upon a Dissent (COA15-699) L- 2. Claimant’s PDR as to Additional Issues 2. Denied 3. Claimant’s Motion to Consolidate Appeals 3. Allowed 4. State’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Dissent 4.- 5. State’s PDR as to Additional Issues * 5. Allowed 6. State’s M

MEMORANDUM * Larry Ingram appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his § 1983 suit against Officers Guillermo Calleros and Juan Arenas (the “Officers”), as well as the City of Los Angeles (the “City”). The facts are known to the parties and need not be repeated here, except as necessary to explain our decision. The Officers’ reliance on erroneous information in making the

MEMORANDUM * Larry Ingram appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his § 1983 suit against Officers Guillermo Calleros and Juan Arenas (the “Officers”), as well as the City of Los Angeles (the “City”). The facts are known to the parties and need not be repeated here, except as necessary to explain our decision. The Officers’ reliance on erroneous information in making the

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MARTY INGRAM, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D14-3673 MARY PETERS INGRAM, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed February 5, 2015

OPINION Opinion by Justice MOSELEY. During the early morning of November 20, 2009, Jacqueline Ingram drove over loose gravel on a curved stretch of Texas Farm-to-Market Road 699, which caused her “vehicle to lose traction, careen off the roadway, and flip onto its roof’ into a ditch. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) co

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: The outcome of this appeal turns on our interpretation of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro 1 — specifically whether that decision renders our stream-of-commerce approach to personal jurisdiction im

365 S.C. 264 (2005) 616 S.E.2d 737 PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. Ray K. INGRAM, Sr., Appellant. No. 4017. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard June 16, 2005. Decided July 18, 2005. *265 Michael M. Jordan, of Sumter, for Appellant. Robert H. Hood, Mary Agnes H

496 F.3d 1253 (2007) Lillian INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Michael J. Astrue, Defendant-Appellee. No. 06-14602. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. August 23, 2007. *1254 *1255 *1256

164 F.Supp.2d 310 (2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Rohan INGRAM, Defendant. No. 01-CR-090 (LEK). United States District Court, N.D. New York. August 24, 2001. *311 *312 L. John Van Norden, Office of L. John Van Norden, Schenectady, NY, for Kirk Gayle. Michael P. Mansion, R

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

[Cite as McManus v. Ingram, 2025-Ohio-4393.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY JOHN MCMANUS, : AS TREASURER OF MONTGOMERY : C.A. No. 30416 COUNTY, OHIO : : Trial Court Case No. 2024 CV 06038 App

HECHT, Justice. Several property owners sued the city of Indianola challenging the special assessments levied for paving a gravel road abutting their property and installing a sidewalk. The district court found the property owners had been assessed in excess of the special benefits received from the project and reduced the assessments. The city appealed. We affirm in part, rever

ORDER PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals after a jury convicted him of unlawful possession of a concealable firearm, in violation of § 571.070, RSMo 1986. We find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion in this ease. Therefore, we affirm by written summary order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision has been issued to the parties for their us