Cases

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District RONALD REYNOLDS, ) Respondent, ) WD81969 v. ) ) WILCOX TRUCK LINE, INC., ) FILED: September 17, 2019 Appellant. ) APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

43 P.3d 1182 (2002) 180 Or. App. 557 STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Nelson James WILCOX, Appellant. 006015; A110568 Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted February 27, 2002. Decided April 10, 2002. *1183 David Groom, Oregon Public Defender, and Laura Frikert, Deputy Public Defen

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Cou

497 S.E.2d 580 (1998) 231 Ga. App. 33 REYNOLDS v. The STATE. No. A97A2101. Court of Appeals of Georgia. February 11, 1998. Reconsideration Denied March 10, 1998. Certiorari Denied June 12, 1998. *582 Lenzer & Lenzer, Robert W. Lenzer, Thomas P. Lenzer, Norcross, for ap

70 F.Supp.2d 877 (1999) Cheryl D. LAMBERT, Administratrix of the Estate of Samuel D. Lambert, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. The BABCOCK & WILCOX, CO., John Crane, Inc., Combustion Engineering, Inc., Foster Wheeler Corp., LaClede Stoker Co., Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Pittsburgh Corning Corp. and W.R. Grace & Co., Inc., Defendants. Nos. 91-9997-C, IP 94-1540 C B/G. United Sta

2024 IL App (1st) 230355 No. 1-23-0355 Opinion filed February 13, 2024 FIRST DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COU

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 20-1268 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. FRANCIS M. REYNOLDS, a/k/a Frank Reynolds, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]

PER CURIAM. Darious Wilcox appeals the judgment of his convictions of one count of first-degree murder, four counts of armed kidnapping, and one count of armed robbery, as well as a sentence of death. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the convictions and the death sentence. *366F

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2023 ME 10 Docket: Yor-22-90 Argued: October 5, 2022 Decided: January 26, 2023 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ. STATE OF MAINE v. DOUGLAS E. WILCOX LAWRENCE, J. [¶1] Douglas E. Wilcox appeals from a judgment of c

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-22-00100-CR JOSEPH ANDREW WILCOX, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 336th District Court Fannin County, Texas Trial Court No. CR-21-28090 Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin

HOWERTON, Chief Judge. This is a second, but separate, appeal arising from a decision in the Warren Circuit Court wherein Charles Wilcox was awarded $1,369,832.63 and William Renick was awarded $197,203.05, jointly and severally, against the Board of Education of Warren County, Kentucky, and David 0. Flahardy. The first appeal was filed by the Board and Flahardy against the basic judgment and award of damages. Wilcox and Ren

73 F.Supp.2d 299 (1999) The REYNOLDS CORP., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL OPERATOR SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 98-CV-6308L. United States District Court, W.D. New York. September 22, 1999. *300 *301 T. Andrew Brown, Brown and Hutchinson, Rochester, NY, Stephen Sale, Claxton, Sale & Qu

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC11-1017 ____________ DARIOUS WILCOX, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [May 8, 2014] (CORRECTED OPINION)

986 P.2d 1172 (1999) 162 Or. App. 567 In the Matter of Christian Wilcox and Savannah Wilcox, Minor Children. STATE ex rel. STATE OFFICE FOR SERVICES TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellant, v. Diana Michelle WILCOX, aka Diane Michelle Locks, Respondent. (96-565CF; CA A101863) Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted October 23, 1998.

OPINION OF THE COURT Milonas, J. P. Plaintiff Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. seeks to recover its alleged losses from the sale of certain stock that was rejected for clearance by the Depository Trust Company. In that regard, defendant BIL Banque Internationale a Luxembourg (Suisse) S.A. deposited five stock certificates of defendant Selectronics, Inc. into its brokerage account with plaintiff. In accordance w

The plaintiff, J.W. Wilcox, sued the defendant, A.T. Reynolds, in the district court of Dewey county, Okla., to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract to convey real estate. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence and instructed a verdict in favor of the defendant and rendered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The parties appear here as they appeared in the trial court, and will be referred to herein as plaintiff and defendant. The defendant

John W. Wilcox, a Tennessee prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court order granting summary judgment to the defendants in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). Seeking injunctive relief, Wilcox

ORDER ON THIRD PARTY SYNCORA’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Nina Y. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge This matter is before the court on Non-Party Syncora Guarantee Inc.’s (“Syncora”) Motion for Protective Order (“Syncora Motion for Protective Order”) [#108]1 filed on July 21, 2015. This motion was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order of Referen

Greaney, J. After hearing six days of evidence during a three-month period, a Suffolk County grand jury indicted the defendant on charges of armed robbery and home invasion. The defendant moved for discovery of the grand jury attendance records to ascertain whether at least twelve of the grand jurors who voted to indict him1 had heard “all of the evidence” presented against him. (Of particular concern

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Klickitat County, No. 02-2-00205-1, E. Thompson Reynolds, J., entered February 3, 2003. Reversed by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, A.C.J., concurred in by Brown, J., and Thompson, J. Pro Tern.