Cases

*279 HOTTEN, J. This attorney discipline proceeding involves a lawyer who was only licensed to practice in the District of Columbia, yet represented a defendant pro bono for a criminal proceeding in a Maryland District Court, sitting in P

Ripple, Circuit Judge. *846 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1930 (a)(6), quarterly fees paid by a chapter 11 debtor to the bankruptcy Trustee are based on the debtor's disbur

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2021-CA-00891-COA DANA M. PATRICK APPELLANT v. CHRISTOPHER L. PATRICK APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/06/2021 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. TROY FARRELL ODOM COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 17, 2006 BRIAN N. KNIGHT, M. CHANCE DUDLEY, KRISTY DUDLEY, AND D. CHAD DUDLEY v. FLANARY & SONS TRUCKING, INC., PATRICK RAY STURM, J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., AND SEAN M. HANSEN An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County N

388 F.Supp.2d 747 (2005) In re: THE TURNER HUNT LEWIS TRUST Richard N. Lewis and William J. Lewis, as Trustees of the Turner Hunt Lewis Trust v. Caroline Lewis Hunt, Ellen Hunt Flowers, Mary Hunt Huddleston, Elizabeth Hunt Curnes, Houston Bunker Hunt, and United States of America. No. CIV. A. 03-2118-M. United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division. June

ALEXANDER, J. [¶ 1] In Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor , 2015 ME 108, 122 A.3d 947, a residential mortgage foreclosure case, we addressed issues, also presented in this appeal, of gaps in evidence reg

SECOND DIVISION MILLER, P. J., MERCIER, J., SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE PHIPPS NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS COURT. ALL

236 F.Supp.2d 1033 (2002) Steven C. EMERY, Rocky Le Compte, and James Picotte, Plaintiffs, v. Roger HUNT, in his official capacity as Speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, et al., Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. State of South Dakota, William J. Janklow, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of South Dakota, et al., Defendants. No. CIV. 00-3008. No. CIV. 00-3015.

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of September 2005 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."

DIETZEN, Justice (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I join in Part II of the court’s opinion, but disagree with Part III and the related portion of Part IV, and therefore respectfully dissent. In my view, Part III of the *273court’s opinion is contrary to the requirements of Rule 4.05 and the new amendment to Rul

132 F.Supp.2d 803 (2001) 2001 D.S.D. 3 Steven C. EMERY, Rocky Le Compte, and James Picotte, Plaintiffs, v. Roger HUNT, in his official capacity as Speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, et al., Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. State of South Dakota, William J. Janklow, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of South Dakota, et al., Defendants. Nos. CIV. 00-3008, CIV. 0

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge: The main issue presented by this appeal is whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act allows an unsuccessful job applicant to sue an employer for using a practice that has a disparate impact on older workers. Richard Villarreal sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Pinstripe, Inc. for rejecting his job applications. All parties agree that Villarr

*********** The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner. The Full Commission AFFIRMS and ADOPT

RILEY, Circuit Judge. Steven Emery, Rocky Le Compte, and James Picotte brought this lawsuit challenging the legality of a state legislative district in South Dakota. After ruling that the legislative district had been created in violation of the South Dakota Constitution, the district court ordered a special election and awarded attorney fees. On appeal, these three plaintiffs

595 F.Supp.2d 1312 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Oneche GARCIA-CORDERO, Defendant. Case No. 08-10057-CR. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. January 15, 2009. Thomas R. Brown, III, United States Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff. Patrick M. Hunt, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

Justice Souter, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. My views on this case are substantially expressed in my dissent to Bush v. Vera, post, p. 952.

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit is here for a second time. In Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 (1993) (Shaw I), we held that plaintiffs whose complaint alleged that the deliberate segregation of voters into separate and bizarre-looking districts on the basis of race stated a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

903 A.2d 608 (2006) GUY M. COOPER, INC., Appellant v. EAST PENN SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc., United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, and The Architectural Studio and O'Brien-Kreitzberg & Associates, Inc. Guy M. Cooper, Inc. v. East Penn School District v. Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc., United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, and The Architectural Studio and O'Brien-Kreitzberg & As

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vito Antonio Laera appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the dis*105</

2023 IL App (2d) 220153 No. 2-22-0153 Opinion filed October 24, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE