Cases

AFFIRMED.

OPINION OF THE COURT Heidi C. Cesare, J. Defendant is charged in an information with obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05), resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30), unlawful vending in a city park (56 RCNY 1-05 [b] [1]) and disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20). In his omnibus motion defendant moves (1) to dismiss all counts in the information as facially insuffici

PER CURIAM: J. Wrix Mcllvaine, appointed counsel for Qaaid Reddick in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent exami

Ray, Judge. Earnest Reddick, a truck driver, filed suit against Jesse Vernon Smith d/b/a Smith Auto Diesel Repair in connection with repairs Smith performed on Reddick’s 1999 Freightliner truck. After a jury trial, the jury awarded Reddick $200,000 in damages. Smith appeals, and in several enumerations of error, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial, or in the alternative, motion for remit

PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, Zollie Reddick, Jr., was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. We are compelled to reverse the attempted second-degree murder conviction because the jury instruction on the lesser offense of attempted voluntary manslaugh*128ter was fundamentally erroneous. Se

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. Timothy Reddick served in a term appointment with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC offered to extend the term appointment, which Mr. Reddick accepted. Prior to the start of the extended portion of the term appointment, the FDIC revoked the already-accepted offer. The issue is whether the revocation constituted a “removal” under 5 U.S.C.

ROLAND L. BELSOME, Judge. h FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 31, 2004, the defendant Red-dick was charged in case 446-989 with one count each of simple escape and simple possession of marijuana. The case was designated a fourth class case and was allotted to Section “C,” which then ordered it reallotted to the magistrate court. On April 14, 2004, Reddick appeared in court, and the court ordered the case

SUAREZ, J. Appellant, Angelo Reddick, appeals the trial court’s denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. In its order, the trial court states that it. has no jurisdiction to hear this Rule 3.850 motion as Reddick has another Rule 3.850 motion presently pending on appeal. The trial court attempted in its order to preserve Reddick’s ability to appeal the merits of the present Rule 3.850 motion by denying

591 S.E.2d 392 (2003) 264 Ga. App. 487 REDDICK v. The STATE. Samuels v. The State. Nos. A03A0982, A03A0983. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 18, 2003. Reconsideration Denied December 2, 2003. Certiorari Denied March 29, 2004. *395 Thomas J. Gustinella, Sav

PER CURIAM. Defendants William Foster and Maurice Reddick appeal their sentences on remand after resentencing. They claim that the amount of cocaine attributed to them was not reasonably foreseeable. They also claim that their sentences violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). On February 18, 1997, a federal grant jury indicted eight Defendants on offense

James Andre Reddick, Jr. v. State of Maryland, Case No. 423, Sept. Term 2023, Opinion filed on October 31, 2024, by Berger, J. PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS – APPOINTMENT POWERS – COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL PROSECUTORS – CJP § 2-102(a) Md. Code (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.) § 2-102(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) empowers a trial court to appoint a Special Prosecutor or assistant counsel for the State, if advisable in a specific proceeding. Pursuant to CJP § 2-104, a court- appointed

599 S.E.2d 20 (2004) 267 Ga.App. 68 PIEDMONT HOSPITAL, INC. v. REDDICK et al. Reddick et al. v. Beers Construction Company. Reddick et al. v. Howell Rusk Dodson — Architects, P.C. Howell Rusk Dodson — Architects, P.C. v. Reddick et al. Nos. A03A2296-A03A2299. Court of Appeals of Georgia. March 24, 2004.

Opinion on rehearing issued November 5, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-12-00155-CV ——————————— DUSTY BEARD, LORENZO ESPINOZA, ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ, CLEMENT LANCLOS, FRANCISCO PEREZ, JR., ANTHONY REDDICK, AND ALVIN WALKER, SR., Appellants

Per Curiam. The court of appeals held that appellant is required to show good cause why he did not file an application to reopen his appellate judgment, even *90though it was journalized over six years before App.R. 26(B) took effect on July 1, 1993. Appellant argues that to apply the good-cause requirement of App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) to him is a denial of due process

MURPHY, Chief Judge. This case concerns the legality of a sentencing judge’s offer to suspend a part of the term of imprisonment imposed on a defendant in return for payment of the victim’s funeral or medical expenses incurred because of the crime. r. Raymond Francis Reddick and Harvey Lee Southall were convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of second degree murder an

Heiman, J. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (4).1 On appeal the defendant asserts that the trial court improperly (1) allowed into evidence an impermissively suggestive in-court identification of the defendant, (2) refused to order the state to produce the

SHELDON, J. The defendant, Jermaine E. Reddick, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered against him after a jury trial in the judicial district of New Haven, on charges of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5), criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1), and assault in the third degree in viola

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge, dissenting. J. H. Harvey Company (Harvey) was entitled to summary judgment because there is an absence of evidence to support Reddick’s claim that Harvey had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard. In order for Reddick to prevail on her claim against Harvey, she was required to prove that Harvey had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard which she clai

123 Ill.2d 184 (1988) 526 N.E.2d 141 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. STEPHEN REDDICK, Appellant. — THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. GREGORY LOWE, Appellee. Nos. 65005, 65022. Supreme Court of Illinois. Opinion filed June 20, 1988. *185

REDMANN, Chief Judge. The question on this appeal is whether a manual gift is established by proof that the now deceased donor transferred funds from a New York bank to a joint account in a New Orleans bank in the names of himself or defendant1 and that defendant reduced those funds to cash in her possession prior to decedent’s death, when defendant’s testimony is the only direct proof of donative