Cases

FILED May 30, 2019 07:15 AM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

FILED Feb 08, 2019 02:07 PM(CT) TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

[Cite as State v. Neal, 2025-Ohio-2499.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240674 TRIAL NO. C/24/TRC/5091/B Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : JUDGMENT E

ORDER Per Curiam Lawrence Neal appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evi-dentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the post-conviction judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a formal published op

BROWN, C.J. *495Plaintiff, Tiffany O'Neal ("the mother"), appeals from a judgment denying a modification of custody for her daughter, HLA. The mother has shared custody with HLA's father, Defendant, Brandon Addis ("the father"), under a shared joint custody implementation plan previously rendered with a consent judgment. The mother seeks joint

01/24/2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 4, 2021 Session BRENT H. MOORE v. KAREN R. MOORE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Lawrence County No. 14-16829 Stella L. Hargrove, Judge ___________________________________

537 U.S. 828 O'NEAL, AKA MOOREv.UNITED STATES. No. 01-9380. Supreme Court of United States. October 7, 2002. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 2

Order Per Curiam: Mr. Charles O’Neal appeals from the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Randolph County, Missouri, denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have.no precedential value, a memorandum setting *887forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the part

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. *620 The warden appeals the district court's grant of Appellee Tyson O'Neal's application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Dillard, Judge. In this personal-injury action arising from a motor-vehicle accident, Donna Arnold appeals the trial court’s orders granting Danny Neal’s motion to enforce settlement and his motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Arnold contends that Neal’s insurance company’s tender was not identical to the terms of her settlement offer and, therefore, did not constitute an acceptance. For the reasons set forth infra, w

Per Curiam. *883The Florida Supreme Court has quashed the decision in this case and remanded with instructions that we reconsider the matter in light of its decision in Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Lanham , 257 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018). I

Per Curiam. *884The Florida Supreme Court has quashed the decision in this case and remanded with instructions that we reconsider the matter in light of its decision in Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Lanham , 257 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018). I

Per Curiam. The Florida Supreme Court has quashed the decision in this case and remanded with instructions that we reconsider the matter in light of its decision in Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Lanham , 257 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018). In compliance with the Florida Supreme Court's directive, we reverse the trial court's dismissa

Per Curiam. The Florida Supreme Court has quashed the decision in this case and remanded with instructions that we reconsider the matter in light of its decision in Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Lanham , 257 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018). In compliance with the Florida Supreme Court's directive, we reverse the trial court's dismissa

Per Curiam. *883The Florida Supreme Court has quashed the decision in this case and remanded with instructions that we reconsider the matter in light of its decision in Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Lanham , 257 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018). I

Per Curiam. The Florida Supreme Court has quashed the decision in this case and remanded with instructions that we reconsider the matter in light of its decision in Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Lanham , 257 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018). In compliance with the Florida Supreme Court's directive, we reverse the trial court's dismissa

Per Curiam. The Florida Supreme Court has quashed the decision in this case and remanded with instructions that we reconsider the matter in light of its decision in Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Lanham , 257 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018). In compliance with the Florida Supreme Court's directive, we reverse the trial court's dismissa

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED, See Higgins v. Dyck-O’Neal, Inc., 201 So.3d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that a. party is not entitled to pursue a.separate action for deficiency judgment where the foreclosure complaint includes a prayer for a deficiency judgment and the foreclosure court reserves jurisdiction to enter a deficiency judgment); see also Dyck-O’Neal, Inc. v. Lanham, 214 So.3d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 20

Per Curiam. AFFIRMED . See Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., v. Lanham , 214 So.3d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (certifying conflict between this Court's decision Higgins v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. , 201 So.3d

Per Curiam. *884The Florida Supreme Court has quashed the decision in this case and remanded with instructions that we reconsider the matter in light of its decision in Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. v. Lanham , 257 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2018). I