Cases

768 N.E.2d 34 (2002) 328 Ill. App.3d 602 263 Ill.Dec. 274 In re MARRIAGE OF Michelle FLANNERY, Petitioner-Appellee, and Kevin Flannery, Respondent-Appellant. No. 2-01-0554. Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. March 22, 2002. *36 Lawrence M. Gavin, Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, Chica

WINTER, Circuit Judge: Keesha Mitchell, Theresa Campbell, Seannette Campbell, and Tanisha Selby appeal the denial of their motion for a writ of execution against Christopher M. Lyons and Garrison Professional Services, Inc. (“Garrison Services”). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a) and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5225(b). The motion was based on default judgments appellants had earli

928 F.2d 1413 55 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 816,56 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,676, 59 USLW 2663,19 Fed.R.Serv.3d 259 Jesse T. DUKE; Sidney W. Fox, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.UNIROYAL INCORPORATED; Uniroyal Chemical Company,Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants,andNorman R. Barden; Joseph R. Bishop, Defendants. (Two Cases)Sidney W. FOX, Plaintiff-Appellant,Jesse T. Duke, Plaintiff,v.UNIROYA

OPINION McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Charles Kinison Jr. was indicted for receiving and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and § 2252(a)(4)(B) after a search of his home turned up over 300 images and 40 videos of child pornography. The district court granted Kinison’s motion to suppress this evidence on the ground that the ma

MacKINNON, Circuit Judge: Appellant was indicted for second degree murder (D.C.Code § 22-2403) and carrying a dangerous weapon (D.C.Code § 22-3204). The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged and appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for five to twenty years on the second degree murder count and one year on the dangerous weapon count, the two sentences to run concurrently.

486 F.2d 415 158 U.S.App.D.C. 348 Robert W. BAKER, Appellant,v.Thomas R. SARD and Donald J. Sheehy.Robert W. BAKER, Appellant,v.Thomas R. SARD, Chairman, Board of Parole, et al. Nos. 22757, 22758. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Jan. 12, 1970.Decided Feb. 16, 1972.Suggestion for

485 F.2d 1039 158 U.S.App.D.C. 260 UNITED STATES of Americav.Lloyd R. GROVER, Appellant. No. 71-1355. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Argued April 21, 1972.Decided Sept. 5, 1973. Devin John Doolan, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), for a

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 13a0071p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellant, - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

598 F.2d 132 194 U.S.App.D.C. 213 UNITED STATES of Americav.Carl L. LYNCH, a/k/a Cobby, Appellant.UNITED STATES of Americav.Theresa LUCAS, a/k/a Theresa Brooks, Appellant.UNITED STATES of Americav.Thomas McCLOUD, a/k/a Mr. Wonderful, Appellant.UNITED STATES of Americav.Clayton PINA, a/k/a Peewee a/k/a Shortman, Appellant.UNITED STATES of Americav.James THOMAS, a/k/

467 F.2d 382 151 U.S.App.D.C. 328 Harold A. SPRIGGS, On Behalf of Himself and All OthersSimilarly Situated, Appellant,v.Jerry V. WILSON, Chief of Police, et al. No. 24719. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Feb. 29, 1972.Decided July 27, 1972.

442 F.2d 803 143 U.S.App.D.C. 81 Patrocinia MENESES, Appellant,v.SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE. No. 23970. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Nov. 2, 1970.Decided Feb. 19, 1971, As Amended March 5, 1971. Mr. Philip Marcus, Wheaton, Md.

SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III, Circuit Judge: This appeal follows a jury trial and convictions of Abell Holiday, the appellant, on two counts of armed robbery, 1 one count of kidnapping, 2 three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued April 13, 2012 Decided August 21, 2012 No. 11-1302 EME HOMER CITY GENERATION, L.P., PETITIONER v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS SAN MIGUEL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL., INTERVENORS Consolidated with 11-1315, 11-1323, 11-1329, 11-1338,

664 F.Supp.2d 752 (2009) In re FORD MOTOR CO. SPEED COTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGTION. MDL No. 1718. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. September 29, 2009. Order on Clarification and Reconsideration January 4, 2010. *754 Michael A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, Houston

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Jesse T. Duke and Sidney W. Fox were discharged from employment with Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. on August 15, 1985, as part of a reduction in force. They filed suit, contending that age was a determining factor in the decision to terminate them and that Uniroyal violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1988). Following a two and one-half week jury trial, th

ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/23/2

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINSON concurred and Judge GREGORY concurred except as to Parts III-B and III-B.l. Judge WILKINSON wrote a concurring opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: These

BAZELON, Chief Judge: Petitioner Colonial Times, Inc., publishes an “underground” newspaper in the District of Columbia known as “The Daily Rag.” The December 8, 1972 edition of “The Daily Rag” displayed on its cover a sketch of an elderly woman, fully dressed, wearing a large lapel button expressing in harsh and graphic language disa

MEMORANDUM OPINION RE: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Takeda to Produce Documents, Answer Interrogatories, and Produce Witnesses THOMAS F. HOGAN, Chief Judge. Before the Court are the objections pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 53 of defendants Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. (“TCI”) and Takeda Vitamin and Food U.S.A., Inc. (“TVFU”) (collectively, “Takeda”) to the Jun

McGOWAN, Circuit Judge: Appellant, a federal employee in the classified service, complained in the District Court of the termination of her employment by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare at the close of the probationary period. On cross-motions for summary judgment, appellees prevailed. This appeal presents two claim