Cases

[Cite as State v. Rhodes, 2022-Ohio-2337.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MAHONING COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LARENZ RHODES, Defendant-Appellan

*452GRIFFIS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part: ¶ 91. I concur with the majority as to issues I, 11(1) and (2), III, V, VI and VII. ¶ 92. I disagree with the majority in issue IV. I also believe my reasoning as to issue IV would require the chancellor to reconsider issue 11(8). Therefore, I

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 23–0338 Submitted April 2, 2024—Filed May 10, 2024 STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. ADAM AARON RHODES, Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John M. Wright (motion to dismiss) and Michael J. Schilling (trial), Judges. The defendant appeals a conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, arguing that his muzzle

33 §SS'O" MMU(ZBA PECEIVED IN ©QURT OF CR|M|NAL APPEALS AUG 19 2015 T»\\S cow&mmza; Puams\z. 13 /\o mma MO\Q\WM<>M nw l \mm/M WM vazs A@Pucm~\{ l\ 01 ma w mm ma /3\€(‘\1/,\\_ AV\ %€MDM(§ A wifqu D\Q\ZL(L"{ \D :UGC~)\’L c\>dz»+\msg \Mr\\»a& \M al w ama/mmc - C>r … Y\ofso\\ H>(L/\v\ K\I\\B\’LMl/\K~{ \3\ Cm(’ud\(_ CQW c>r \m; Vmo»\ /> C)\~\ \\>6_ \)MEL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 23–0338 Submitted April 2, 2024—Filed May 10, 2024 STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. ADAM AARON RHODES, Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John M. Wright (motion to dismiss) and Michael J. Schilling (trial), Judges. The defendant appeals a conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, arguing that his muzzle

EDMONDSON, J. T1 This proceeding involves a request for an extraordinary writ that is recast as appeal from an order in a guardianship that adjudicated the wards' selection of counsel and adjudicated a motion concerning unsupervised visitation and selection of a guardian. This proceeding also involves two requests for extraordinary relief that were made during the appeal.1 The first involves an e

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APACHE STRONGHOLD, a No. 21-15295 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:21-cv-00050- SPL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; OPINION THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); RANDY MOORE, Chief, USDA For

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APACHE STRONGHOLD, a No. 21-15295 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:21-cv-00050- SPL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; OPINION THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); RANDY MOORE, Chief, USDA For

DECISION AND ORDER LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge. Joel Rhodes has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted in a Wisconsin trial court of one count of kidnapping and one count of aggravated battery. On the kidnapping count, the trial court sentenced him .to twenty-five years of confinement in state prison and five years of extended supervision. On the

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APACHE STRONGHOLD, a No. 21-15295 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:21-cv-00050- SPL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ORDER AND THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary, AMENDED U.S. Department of Agriculture OPIN

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0192p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ KELLY JANE RHODES, │ Plaintiff-Appe

[Cite as Today & Tomorrow Heating & Cooling v. Greenfield, 2014-Ohio-239.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HIGHLAND COUNTY TODAY AND TOMORROW Case No. 13CA14 HEATING & COOLING, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : DECISI

CURLEY, EJ. ¶ 1. Joel D. Rhodes appeals from a judgment, entered upon a jury's verdict, convicting him of one count of kidnapping and one count of aggravated battery, both as a party to a crime. See Wis. Stat. *599§§ 940.31(l)(b), 940.19(5), 939.05 (2001-02).1 He also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion. Rhodes con

08/28/2019 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 15, 2019 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. NATHANIEL A. RHODES Appeal from the Criminal Court for Wilson County Nos. 15-CR-1060, 15-CR-1061 Brody N. Kane, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge. The plaintiff Shilisa Rhodes brought this medical malpractice action against the United States, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671, et seq., for damages allegedly sustained fro

990 A.2d 732 (2009) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Teri RHODES, Appellant. No. 143 WDA 2009. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 22, 2009. Filed December 31, 2009. *734 Philip B. Friedman, Erie, for appellant. Elizabeth A. Hirz, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appelle

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-1597-05, PD-1598

Opinion DAVIS, Judge: € 1 Clyde Rhodes, Joseph Naso, and Rene Naso Evans (collectively, Defendants) appeal from an Order and Judgment, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by striking their Answer and entering judgment against them as a discovery sanction pursuant to rule 37 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Utah R. Civ. P. 37(0)(@). In the alternative, Defendants contend that even if

670 F.Supp.2d 1363 (2009) Connie RHODES, Plaintiff, v. Thomas D. MacDONALD, Colonel, Garrison Commander, Fort Benning; et al., Defendants. Case No. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL). United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division. October 13, 2009. *1365 Connie Rhodes, Mission Viego, CA, pro se. Rebecca Elaine Ausprung, Arl

OPINION OF THE COURT Roman, J. The issue before us is whether article 11 of the General Business Law, by its terms, provides an express private right of action and whether, in the absence of such an express right, one is nevertheless implied. We hold, and indeed not for the first time, that article 11 does not provide either an express or an implied private right of action against licensed or unlicensed empl