Cases

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 05/11/2021 09:10 AM CDT - 787 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 29 Nebraska Appellate Reports WRIGHT v. WRIGHT Cite as 29 Neb. App. 787 Heather Wright, appe

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

[Cite as State v. Wright, 2022-Ohio-1537.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-20-1206 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201902202 v. Justin Wright DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022-NCCOA-418 No. COA20-250 Filed 21 June 2022 Wake County, Nos. 15 CRS 217444, 18 CRS 001526 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NICODEMUS WRIGHT, Defendant. Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 18 September 2019 by Judge Michael A. Stone in Wake County Superior

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022-NCCOA-418 No. COA20-250 Filed 21 June 2022 Wake County, Nos. 15 CRS 217444, 18 CRS 001526 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NICODEMUS WRIGHT, Defendant. Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 18 September 2019 by Judge Michael A. Stone in Wake County Superior

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

2021 UT App 7 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, Appellee, v. EUGENE CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, Appellant. Opinion No. 20100655-CA Filed January 22, 2021 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Royal I. Hansen

Mauro, J., Concurring and Dissenting. I fully concur with parts I, III, IV, VI, VII, and VIII of the majority opinion, but I disagree with parts II and V addressing the electronic device search condition and the e-mail/internet search condition (hereafter the e-search conditions), which the majority opinion appears to analyze in the same manner. Although the majority opinion disagrees with the test applied in some other published

Case: 20-61139 Document: 00516073506 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 28, 2021 No. 20-6113

Filed 7/2/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- THE PEOPLE, C082729 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16FE011619) v. CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT,

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-1721 ___________________________ State of Iowa; State of Arkansas; State of Florida; State of Idaho; State of Kansas; State of Mississippi; State of Missouri; State of Montana; State of Nebraska; State of Ohio; State of Oklahoma; State of Texas; State of Utah; American Free

LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge. | Jeffrey Scott Wright appeals from a divorce decree and argues five points for reversal: 1) the trial court abused its discretion in calculating his income for the purposes of setting child support; 2) the trial court erred in setting the amount and duration of his child-support obligation; 3) the trial court erred in making an unequal distribution of marital property with

Trial Court too.1334182 COA Case'No. 01-13-00838-CR. sip 011W PD-0284-15 Date 8-31-2015 From : $ Finley Wright IlN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRI - ? *°^79^9° .. HINAL APPEALS |

593 F.Supp.2d 516 (2009) Moshe DEKEL, Plaintiff, v. UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION, as Successor in interest to the Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, Defendant. No. 04-CV-413 (RRM)(ETB). United States District Court, E.D. New York. January 20, 2009. *517 Kevin E. Rockitter, Kevin E. Rockitter, P.C., Woodbury, NY, for Plaintiff.

People v Wright (2025 NY Slip Op 05869) People v Wright 2025 NY Slip Op 05869 Decided on October 23, 2025 Court of Appeals Rivera, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 903 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 904 OPINION After more than 26 years of marriage, Jodie Ileane Wright sued Glenn Arnold Wr

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-1039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. DAVID WRIGHT, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]

FIFTH DIVISION RICKMAN, C. J., MCFADDEN, P. J., and 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 March 2, 20

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 903 On February 28, 2005, Allison Richardson Wright ("the wife") filed a complaint for divorce from John Duff Wright ("the husband"). On November 19, 2007, the Baldwin Circuit Court divorced the parties on the ground of the husband's adultery. The court awarded the wife sole physical custody of the parties' thre

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr