Cases

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JUDGE The plaintiffs, Leah and Mariah Day, appeal’ the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County entered in favor of the defendants, Pamela and Mark Hupp, following a bench trial. Our standard of review compels us to defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations. These credibility determinations led the trial court to conclude that Pamela Hupp made no enforceable promise to the plaintiffs’

PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004). ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Gross, J. This case presents a novel issue under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). A common factual issue in Miranda eases is whether a suspect is in custody when police interrogation begins. If a suspect is in custody, the police “are required to advise the suspect of his or her Miranda rights” before commencing interrogation. Caldwell

LEWIS, J. Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for trafficking in hydrocodone. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to give the “prescription defense” instruction to the jury. Because the failure to instruct the jury on the “prescription defense” under the circumstances of this case does not rise to the level of fundamental error, we affirm Appellant’

PER CURIAM. DENIED. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(d)(5). BENTON, C.J., ROBERTS and RAY, JJ., concur.

VILLANTI, Judge. Latrice Day appeals her conviction for one count of grand theft ($300 or more), contending that the trial court erred by permitting the State to have a police officer identify Day as one of the women *1286depicted in surveillance video of the crime. While the identification testimony itself was admissible, we agree with Day that the trial court err

PER CURIAM. Appellant James S. Day, Jr. appeals from the denial of his amended motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion included four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and a claim that the trial court failed to rule on a post-sentence motion to withdraw plea. On appeal, the Appellant challenges only the summary denial of claims one and three (ineff

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 1, 2022 PAMELA DIANE STARK v. JOE EDWARD STARK Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-002958-18 Robert Samual Weiss, Judge FILED MAY 3 1 2022 No. W2020-01692-C

PER CURIAM. James Day appeals an order summarily denying a successive rule 3.850 motion and sanctioning him for frivolous filing. We affirm the summary denial of his postcon-viction motion, but reverse and remand the sanction order for the trial court to follow the procedure in rule 3.85Q(n) before imposing a sanction. ■ Affirmed in part and revers

ORDER PER CURIAM. Pamela Jackson (“Jackson”) appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) affirming the decision of the Division of Employment Security Appeals Tribunal (“Appeals Tribunal”) denying Jackson unemployment compensation benefits. The Commission found Jackson disqualified from benefits because she was terminated from St. Elizabeth’s Adult Day

PARIENTE, J. The certified conflict issue in this case requires us to define the term “manifestation” as it applies to the plaintiffs tobacco-related disease or medical condition for purposes of establishing membership in the Engle class based on our decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006).1 The resolution of this narrow issue ultimately turns on our int

LEWIS, Judge. In an opinion filed 15 August 2000, this Court concluded the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action contesting defendant Suzanne E. Day’s right to dissent from her deceased husband’s will. We affirmed the trial court’s 19 April 1999 order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Day. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to Rule 31 of

681 N.E.2d 713 (1997) Cheryl SULLIVAN, in her capacity as Secretary of Indiana Family and Social Services Administration and Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. Petricia DAY, individually and in behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellees (Plaintiffs Below). No. 49S02-9612-CV-735. Supreme Court of Indiana. June 24, 1997.</

LEWIS, Judge. Plaintiffs instituted a declaratory judgment action to determine whether defendant Suzanne E. Day is entitled to dissent from her deceased husband’s will. Plaintiffs are the nieces and nephew of the decedent. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Day and Wachovia; however, plaintiffs filed notice of appeal only with respect to defendant Day. As such, we address the issues on appeal only

669 N.E.2d 1072 (1996) Joseph E. DAY, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 49A05-9412-CR-482. Court of Appeals of Indiana. September 9, 1996. *1073 Kurt A. Young, Nashville, for Appellant. Pamela Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Meredith J. Mann, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for A

643 N.E.2d 1 (1994) Rodney G. DAY, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 44A04-9401-CR-22.[1] Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District. November 22, 1994. Transfer Denied February 28, 1995. *2 Jeffrey A. James, LaGrange, for appellant. Pamela Carter, Atty. Gen., Su

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 23-0955 ══════════ Walgreens, Petitioner, v. Pamela McKenzie, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Distr

661 N.E.2d 848 (1996) Cheryl SULLIVAN, in her capacity as Secretary of Indiana Family and Social Services Administration and Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Appellants (Defendants), v. Petricia DAY, individually and in behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellees (Plaintiffs). No. 49A02-9505-CV-240. Court of Appeals of Indiana. February 20, 1996.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: ' In this title VII case of claimed same-sex harassment, Patrick La Day presented summary judgment evidence that his supervisor, Willie Craft, made obnoxious comments about La Day’s sexuality, inappropriately touched a private part of La Day’s body, and spat tobacco juice on him; Craft also had made crude remarks to other employees and touched them

FILED JUN 11 2025 SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK ORDERED PUBLISHED U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE NINTH