Cases

NUMBER 13-06-00396-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00622-CV Ricardo J. REYNA, Individually and d/b/a Ricardo J. Reyna U.S. Mail Service, An Assumed Name, and Ruben Garcia Jr., Appellants v.

• • • • • • MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00622-CV Ricardo J. REYNA, Individually and d/b/a Ricardo J.

MELANSON, Judge. Ricardo Ozuna, Jr., appeals from his judgment of conviction for lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen and his unified life sentence, with a minimum term of confinement of twenty years, enhanced for having been previously convicted of a sexual offense. Specifically, Ozuna argues that the district court erred by excluding proffered evidence of the victim’s

SUMMARY ORDER Rosalie Garcia, Manuel Roman, and Ricardo Silva appeal from judgments of conviction entered on June 14, 2006, July 24, 2006, and August 18, 2006, respectively, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lynch, /.), following a six-week jury trial on a twelve-count superseding indictment charging them with racketeering, narcotics trafficking, murder and other offenses related to thei

OPINION AND ORDER BESOSA, District Judge. Plaintiffs,1 New York based insurance companies, brought suit against defendants, government officials of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, seeking a declaratory order that two executive orders (“OEs”) by Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro Garcia-Padilla (“Governor Garcia-Padilla”) violate the Takings, Due Process, and Contracts Clauses

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), entered May 30, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon an order of the same court, dated July 5, 2000, denying his motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR former 306-b, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $15,500. Ordered that the judgment is r

346 S.W.3d 220 (2011) UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON, Appellant, v. Ricardo A. GARCIA, Appellee. No. 14-10-01021-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). July 26, 2011. *222 Timothy Edward Boughal, Austin, for appellant. Carlos Leon, Sugarland, for appellee. Panel consists of Chief

OPINION Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice West 17th Resources, LLC, Thomas Mika, and Pamela Mika Wolf appeal the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Lucian and Carleen Pawelek. In seventeen issues, Appellants argue the Paweleks failed to establish superior title to an undivided 1/10 interest in real property that Appella

BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. A group of employees filed class and collective actions against Tyson Foods, Inc., seeking unpaid wages for time spent on pre- and post-shift activities. After the employees obtained a sizeable verdict and fee award, 1 Tyson unsuccessfully moved for judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, Tys

891 S.W.2d 255 (1995) TEXACO, INC. and Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc., Relators, v. The Honorable Ricardo H. GARCIA, Judge, Respondent. No. 94-0745. Supreme Court of Texas. January 12, 1995. Deborah G. Hankinson, Dallas, David R. Noteware, Patricia A. Nolan, Houston, for relators. Joseph O. Slovacek, Houston, Ricardo H. Garcia, San Diego, Ronald D. Secre

415 F.Supp.2d 42 (2006) Carlos RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, Plaintiff(s) v. JUNTA DE DIRECTORES DE COOPERATIVA JARDINES DE SAN IGNACIO, et al., Defendant(s). Civil No. 03-2190 (JAG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. February 21, 2006. *43 Idalia M. Diaz-Pedrosa, Diaz Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs. Victor Ricar

This is an appeal from a summary judgment. Appellant, Ricardo Garcia, filed suit against appellee, Victor Garcia, for wrongful termination and violation of procedural due process. The trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. We affirm. The issues before us are: 1) whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact exists; and 2) whether the trial court erred in granting the motion f

909 S.W.2d 503 (1995) The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Relator, v. The Honorable Ricardo H. GARCIA, Judge, Respondent. The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Relator, v. The Honorable Gary SANDERSON, Judge, Respondent. Nos. 95-0505, 95-0633. Supreme Court of Texas. Argued October 10, 1995. Decided November 2, 1995. *504

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D24-1985 Lower Tribunal No. 23-202-GD-02 ________________ Ricardo R. Corona, et al., Appellants,

901 F.Supp. 45 (1995) Hector Rodriguez GUZMAN, et al., Plaintiff v. Hon. Vydia GARCIA, et al., Defendant. Civ. No. 91-2281(JP). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. September 14, 1995. *46 Francisco González Colón, Jesús Hernández Sánchez, Santurce, PR, for plaintiffs. Graciela J. Belaval-Bruno, Martinez, Odell &a;

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-17-00318-CR RICARDO LOPEZ, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 137th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Cou

GREEN, Justice. Relator, Safety-Kleen Corp. (“Safety-Kleen”), seeks a writ of mandamus to require the Respondent, The Honorable Ricardo H. Garcia, to set a hearing on Safety-KIeen’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories, which was filed on January 20, 1997.1 We conditionally grant the writ to compel Judge Garcia to act. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Safety-Kleen

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Defendants-appellants Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (collectively, “Tyson”) appeal from the district court’s interlocutory order denying their motion for partial summary judgment. We ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing whether this appeal should be dismissed on the ground that the order appealed from was not final. Tyson argues that we have jurisdiction over the appeal under

NUMBER 13-23-00333-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG RICARDO JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE 341ST DISTRICT COURT