Cases

PER CURIAM: *697Denied. Applicant shows no lower court error. Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244

PER CURIAM: *697Denied. Applicant shows no lower court error. Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244

Motion Desc: Appellants Petition for Writ of Certiorari Certiorari—Granted

FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. On November 1, 2012, Dale Miller filed for divorce against his wife, Jessica Smith, on the ground of spousal incarceration, or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Dale also sought custody of their two children—Robert (“Smitty”) and Margaret.1 The chancellor appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL), who ultimately

MEMORANDUM OPINION AMY BERMAN JACKSON, District Judge. Plaintiff, Mshairi Jonathan Miller, proceeding pro se, has brought this action against both the United States Department of Treasury Financial Management Service (“FMS”) and an individual identified as D. Smith, in her official capacity as Accounts Manager for the Mar

BENJAMIN, J., dissenting: I dissent from the holding of the Court. I write separately to again question the Court’s incorporation in the ease sub judice of Syl. pt. 3, Miller v. Toler, 229 W.Va. 302, 729 S.E.2d 137 (2012), which held, “The judicially-created exclusionary rule is not applicable in a civil, administrative driver’s license revocation or suspension proceeding.” As set forth in my

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 508.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

989 A.2d 537 (2009) 2009 VT 120 Lawrence MILLER v. Karen SMITH. No. 09-148. Supreme Court of Vermont. December 4, 2009. Present: REIBER, C.J., DOOLEY, JOHNSON, SKOGLUND and BURGESS, JJ. ENTRY ORDER ¶ 1. Mother appeals from the family court's order regarding parent-child contact. This is the third time the partie

759 N.W.2d 773 (2008) 2009 WI 5 MILLER v. SMITH. No. 2008AP0172-W. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. December 15, 2008. Petition for review denied.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Douglas Miller. Sua sponte, cause dismissed. Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Douglas M. Miller. Sua sponte, cause dismissed. Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Shamahs, H.E.), dated June 13, 2002, which, after a hearing, directed him to pay the sum of $619.51 per month in child support and the sum of $311.83 per month toward child care, and (2) an order of the same court (Pearce, J.) dated November 22, 2002, which denied his objections to the order dated June 13, 2002.

Super. Ct. Tattnall County, Ga. Certiorari denied.

Rehearing en banc granted by order filed 12/10/96; published opinion of 10/29/96 is vacated. PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BERNARD ERIC MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 95-7521 WILLIAM SMITH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (

921 S.W.2d 39 (1996) Bonnie J. MILLER and Francis H. Miller, Appellants, v. Robert E. SMITH, Respondent. No. WD 50521. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. February 27, 1996. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied April 2, 1996. Application to Transfer Denied May 28, 1996. *42 David

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 92-2-12599-4, Jim Bates, J., entered February 11, 1995. Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM. We reverse the order appealed to the extent that it holds that the responses of appellants Barbara Alford and Kathryn Miller Wynn were legally insufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 733.2123, Florida Statutes (1989). As to all remaining appellants, the order is affirmed. *243AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.<

FILED Feb 15, 2024 12:21 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION