Cases

696 S.E.2d 654 (2010) WALKER et al. v. CROMARTIE et al. No. S10A0518. Supreme Court of Georgia. June 28, 2010. *656 Joel D. Walker, Carrollton, pro se. Patricia A. Walker, Carrollton, pro se. Hawkins & Parnell, Kim M. Jackson, Atlanta, for appellee. BENHAM, Justice. Appellants Joel and Patricia Wal

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 16, 2014 Decided July 21, 2015 No. 13-7038 PATRICIA GRIMES, AS THE NEXT BEST FRIEND AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KARL GRIMES, APPELLANT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the

PER CURIAM: Appellant, Patricia Green, sought the benefit of the in forma pauperis (IFP) statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 (West 1966), 1 in filing this civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1974). The district court found Green’s complaint to

192 Ga. App. 857 (1989) 386 S.E.2d 727 WILLIAMSON v. WARD. A89A1812. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided September 20, 1989. Jeffrey R. Sliz, for appellant. Wendy J. Glasbrenner, Patricia D. Barron, Vicky O. Kimbrell, Phyllis J. Holmen, John L. Cromartie, Jr., for appellee. BANKE, Presiding Judge. The appel

700 S.W.2d 244 (1985) ALBRITTON DEVELOPMENT CO., Appellant, v. GLENDON INVESTMENTS, INC., et al, Appellees. No. 01-85-266-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). October 3, 1985. Rehearing Denied October 31, 1985. *245 Eric R. Cromartie, Hughes & Luce, Dallas, for appellant. Patricia Hair,

192 Ga. App. 631 (1989) 385 S.E.2d 734 RUFF v. CENTRAL STATE HOSPITAL. A89A1219. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided July 14, 1989. Rehearing Denied July 31, 1989. Torin D. Togut, Phyllis J. Holmen, John L. Cromartie, Jr., for appellant. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, William C. Joy, Senior Assistant A

Ingram, Justice. This appeal, from the denial of an interlocutory injunction, involves an infant’s contract of suretyship which she sought to disaffirm with the appellee bank. The question for decision is whether this contract is voidable under the provisions of Code Ann. § 20-201, or whether it is enforceable. The trial court apparently was of the opinion that the contract was not voidable and therefore declined to enjoin the

236 Ga. 610 (1976) 225 S.E.2d 17 MOORE v. AMERICAN FINANCE SYSTEM. 30928. Supreme Court of Georgia. Argued March 9, 1976. Decided April 6, 1976. *612 Patricia C. Downing, Ernest V. Harris, John L. Cromartie, Jr., for appellant. HALL, Justice. This is an appeal from an

ORDER SHOOB, District Judge. On November 11, 1976, by order of Judge Newell Edenfield, a stay was entered in this case pending a final ruling on similar cases then on appeal before the Third and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. Certiorari was granted in the Ninth Circuit consolidated *281cases, sub nom. Elliott v. Weinberger, 564 F.2d 1219

49 Ill. App.3d 164 (1977) 364 N.E.2d 117 DEERE & COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROBERT H. ALLPHIN, Director of Revenue of the State of Illinois, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 76-534. Illinois Appellate Court — Third District. Opinion filed June 14, 1977. *165 William P. Sutter, of Hopkin

634 S.E.2d 802 (2006) ALL FLEET REFINISHING, INC. et al. v. WEST GEORGIA NATIONAL BANK. No. A06A0825. Court of Appeals of Georgia. July 7, 2006. Reconsideration Denied July 26, 2006. *804 H.L. Cromartie III, Rome, for appellants. Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Richard L. Robbins, Andrew W. Broy, Atlanta

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge, concurring: I join the majority opinion in full but write separately to raise concerns with how the district court construed the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Local Rules) in granting summary judgment to the District on Grimes’s Eighth Amendment claim. As the majority opinion recounts, Grimes did not file an opposition to

741 F.Supp. 1563 (1990) Brenda HUSSION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Clayton YEUTTER, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 1:86-cv-1778-MHS. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. July 11, 1990. Patricia Deandrea Barron, Georgia Legal Services Programs, Gainesville, Ga., John L. Cromartie, Jr., Phyllis J. Holmen, Susan Alice Reif, N. Katherine Young, Atl

"This case comes before the court on plaintiffs motion, filed September 19, 1977, requesting that the court adopt, as the basis for its judgment in this case, the recommended decision of Trial Judge Philip R. Miller, filed July 22, 1977, pursuant to Rule 134(h), defendant on September 13, 1977, having withdrawn its previously filed notice of intention to except. Upon consideration thereof without oral argument, with respect to attorneys fees the court doe

694 F.Supp.2d 350 (2010) Patricia O'DONNELL, Plaintiff v. LRP PUBLICATIONS, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-1560. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. February 16, 2010. *351 Timothy M. Kolman, Wayne A. Ely, Timothy M. Kolman and Associates, Penndel, PA, for Plaintiff. Steven K. Ludwig, Fox Rothschild O'Br

792 F.Supp.2d 1201 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ronald L. POTEET, State of New Mexico, Patricia S. Brooks, Glen Mortensen, Cindy Mortensen, Defendants. No. CIV 10-0970 JB/LFG. United States District Court, D. New Mexico. May 27, 2011. *1202 Holly Michele Church, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice,

CHARLES B. GOODWIN, United States District Judge *1068This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 125) filed pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In their Motion, Plaintiffs seek summary adjudication of their claims of negligence per se and public nuisance per se , as well a

OPINION OF THE THREE-JUDGE COURT NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: After the 2010 decennial census, Maryland enacted a new redistricting plan in October 2011 for its eight congressional districts. The plaintiffs, nine African-American residents of Maryland, commenced this action against election officials of Maryland (“Maryland” or “the State”), contending that the redistricting plan violates their righ

OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge:. Nna Alpha Onuoha appeals the district court’s order authorizing the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to forcibly medicate him to restore his competency to stand trial. On-uoha was charged under ■ 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(e) and 1038(a)(1) for allegedly, making phone calls to authorities at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) ■ in

MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge Plaintiff Dale Page filed the instant amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that both the District of Columbia and Officer Ashley Mancuso of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that