Cases

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1130 ¶ 1 Jesse Riddle appeals the district court's dismissal of his defamation claim against Lester Perry. Because the alleged defamatory statement was privileged, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶ 2 When determining whether a trial court properly granted a motion to dismiss, we a

EBEL, Circuit Judge. Defendants-Appellees Jesse Riddle and Riddle & Associates (collectively, “Riddle”) violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA” or “Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o, by filing suit against Plaintiff-Appellant Brenda Johnson (“Johnson”) to recover statutory shoplifting penalties for a dishonored check under Utah law.

296 F.Supp.2d 1283 (2003) Brenda JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Jesse L. RIDDLE; Riddle & Associates, P.C., et al., Defendants. No. 2:98-CV-00599 PGC. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. December 15, 2003. *1284 Jason H. Robinson, Babcock, Scott & Babcock, Lester A. Perry, Hoole & King LC, Salt Lake City,

ORDER This matter is before the court on appel-lees’ petition for rehearing filed on July 11, 2002. The petition for rehearing is granted. Therefore, the court’s opinion filed June 27, 2002 is vacated and a revised opinion is attached. OPINION EBEL, Circuit Judge. Under Utah statutory law, the holder of a dishonored check may collect from the person who wrote t

In this workers' compensation case, defendant, the North Carolina Department of Correction ("DOC"), appeals from the Industrial Commission's denial of DOC's motion for a stay of a decision of the Commission's Executive Secretary reinstating benefits after DOC unilaterally ceased paying benefits to plaintiff Cedric Perry for his admittedly compensable injury. Because this appeal is interlocutory and does not involve a substantial right that will be lost absent immediate review, we dism

* * * * * * * * * * * FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, it is ordered that defendant's request for a Stay of three Administrative Orders filed by Executive Secretary Tracey H. Weaver on April 23, 2004, July 23, 2004, and October 18, 2004, respectively, is DENIED. This the 17th day of November 2004. S/_________________ BUCK LATTIMORE CHAIRMAN

283 S.C. 387 (1984) 324 S.E.2d 59 J. R. RIDDLE, Respondent, v. C.H. PITTS, D/B/A Pitts Auto Sale, Appellant. 22187 Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard October 17, 1984. Decided November 26, 1984. Clayton Walker, Jr., Columbia, for appellant. William M. Grant, Jr., of Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant

687 S.E.2d 165 (2009) RIDDLE v. The STATE. No. A09A0473. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 19, 2009. Dante L. Hudson, for Appellant. Stephen D. Kelley, Dist. Atty., David E. Perry, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee. DOYLE, Judge. Following a jury trial, Richard Riddle appeals from his conviction of influencing the

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 08 2019, 8:34 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-18-00388-CR ___________________________ CHARLES VICTOR RIDDLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 297th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1447916D Before Pittman, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

381 S.C. 192 (2009) 672 S.E.2d 578 Dorothy WINDHAM, Respondent, v. Donald Allen RIDDLE and Jennifer D. Riddle, Petitioners. No. 26586. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard October 7, 2008. Decided January 20, 2009. *195 Pete Kulmala, of Harvey & Kulmala, of Barnwell, for Petitioners.

MOORE, J. |,The plaintiffs, Charles and Peggy Waters, appeal a judgment that ordered partition by licitation of a 160-acre tract in Webster Parish and awarded three of the defendants, Mary Jean Perry, Kenneth Little and Margaret Louis Haskin, undivided interests of 0.021633185, 0.021633185 and 0.010816592, respectively. The Wa-terses contend that the defendants’ true shares are only one-half of the amounts awarded. Finding

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 16 2020, 9:23 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral

HUFF, J.: In this property dispute, Dorothy Windham appeals the master-in-equity’s finding that Donald and Jennifer Riddle (the Riddles) had an appurtenant easement for irrigation purposes over property owned by Windham. We reverse and remand. FACTS The Riddles and Windham are adjacent property owners in Orangeburg County. Both parties purchased their property from a common grantor, Da

DECISION AND ORDER RUDOLPH T. RANDA, United States District Judge This civil rights lawsuit arises from the death of James Franklin Perry. On September 13, 2010, Perry was arrested by Milwaukee police officers, suffered multiple seizures, and eventually died at the county jail. Perry’s son and the administrator of Perry’s estate sued Milwaukee County, the City of Milwaukee, and various police officers,

MAIN, Justice. Cathy Trimble and Ida Longmire petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Perry Circuit Court to enter a summary judgment in their favor on certain claims asserted against them by Crystal Lewis, individually and by and through her mother and next friend, Mary Lewis. We grant their petition and issue the writ. I. Facts and Procedural History In Octo

624 F.3d 157 (2010) David Wallace CROFT, As Parents and Next Friend of their minor Children; Shannon Kristine Croft, As Parents and Next Friend of their minor Children; John Doe, As Parents and Next Friend of their minor Children; Jane Doe, As Parents and Next Friend of their minor Children, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Rick PERRY, Governor of the State of Texas, Defendant-Appellee. No. 09-10347. United S

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. In our system of justice, fair trial for persons charged with criminal offenses is secured by the Sixth Amendment, which *232guarantees to defendants the right to counsel, compulsory-process to obtain defense witnesses, and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution. Those safeguard

OPINION NELVA GONZALES RAMOS, District Judge. The right to vote: It defines our nation as a democracy. It is the key to what Abraham Lincoln so famously extolled as a “government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.”1 The Supreme Court of the United States, placing the power of the right to vote in context, explained: “Especially since the right to ex

OPINION OF THE COURT [565 U.S. 231] Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. In our system of justice, fair trial for persons charged with criminal offenses is secured by the Sixth Amendment, which [565 U.S. 232] guarantees to defendants the right to counsel, compulsory process to obtain defense witnesses, and the opportun