Cases

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before former Deputy Commissioner Scott M. Taylor. Plaintiff appeared before the Full Commission without representation, while defendant waived oral argument. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or to amend the Opinion and Award. * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters o

[1] OPINION [2] This case came before the court for oral argument on May 6, 1991, pursuant to an order which had directed both parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised by this appeal should not be summarily decided. [3] After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial justice did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the third-party defendant, Michael DiChiaro.

[Cite as Shell v. Higgins, 2017-Ohio-8186.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DARKE COUNTY ABBIE M. SHELL : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2017-CA-5 : v.

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 177 Ohio St.3d 76.] THE STATE EX REL. JOHNSON v. HIGGINS. [Cite as State ex rel. Johnson v. Higgins, 2024-Ohio-5174.] Quo warranto—Relator cannot establish that he is entitled to position of fire chief or that respondent is unlawfully holding the position, because relator was not the candidate who received the highest civil-service-examination grade for the position and his n

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Johnson v. Higgins, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5174.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of an

Affirm; Opinion Filed November 12, 2019 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-01497-CR THOMAS PETER HIGGINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial Distri

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered November 28, 2008, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). The defendant allegedly subjected his grand

Laurie Smith Camp, Chief United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 49, filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted. BACKGROUND The following facts are those stated in the parties' briefs, supported by pinpoint citations to evidence in the record, and admitted, or

154 Mich. App. 752 (1986) 398 N.W.2d 520 HIGGINS v. DETROIT OSTEOPATHIC HOSPITAL CORPORATION Docket No. 82569. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided September 16, 1986. Charfoos, Christensen & Archer, P.C. (by Dennis W. Archer and J. Douglas Peters), for plaintiff. Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas, Wagner & Kenney

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 479 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 480 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE N

Filed: December 4, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7619 (CA-94-1424-AMD) Gregory L. Rich, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus Sergeant Michael Bruce, Defendant - Appellant.

Opinion NORCOTT, J. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court, in the hearing required by our remand in Higgins v. Karp, 239 Conn. 802, 811, 687 A.2d 539 (1997), properly excluded additional evidence on the issue of whether good cause existed to set aside defaults against Drzislav Coric, the administrator of the estate of Robert Freeman (hereafter referred to a

COFFIN, Chief Judge. The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) seeks enforcement of a cease and desist order issued after its finding that respondent violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) (1) by soliciting employee grievances and promising and granting benefits with intent to discourage support

PER CURIAM. In this diversity action, plaintiff, Russell Simmons, appeals from the dismissal of his products liability action on statute of limitations grounds. Upon a review of the proceedings in the district court, we conclude that the action was properly dismissed. Accordingly, we affirm essentially for the reasons set forth in the trial court’s written opinion.

793 S.W.2d 832 (1990) Arnold RICH, Guardian and Next Friend for John RICH and John Rich, Appellants, v. KENTUCKY COUNTRY DAY, INC., Appellee. No. 89-CA-899-MR. Court of Appeals of Kentucky. March 30, 1990. Discretionary Review Denied by Supreme Court September 19, 1990. *833 J. Andrew White, Louisville, for appel

192 S.E.2d 824 (1972) 282 N.C. 383 Jane RICH and Vicky Kim Rich, by her Guardian Ad Litem, George F. Taylor v. CITY OF GOLDSBORO. No. 65. Supreme Court of North Carolina. December 13, 1972. *826 Sasser, Duke & Brown, by John E. Duke, and J. Thomas Brown, Jr., Herbert B. Hulse, Goldsboro, for plaintiffs

I regret very much that I am unable to agree with the majority opinion in this case. The second exception alleges error on the part of the Judge when he charged the jury as follows: "If A goes into a store and meets the proprietor at the door; and the proprietor of the store says to him: `Show him a suit of clothes, and if he likes it, sell it to him.' If A likes the suit of clothes and buys it, pays B for it, B is the agent of the proprietor of the store, and the act of one is the act

433 N.W.2d 306 (1988) Patricia Kay HIGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GORDON JEWELRY CORPORATION d/b/a Jaccards Jewelry, Defendant-Appellant. No. 87-609. Court of Appeals of Iowa. September 28, 1988. *307 Gregory G. Barnsten of Smith, Peterson, Beckman & Willson, Council Bluffs, for defendant-appellant. Lyle A. Rodenburg

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of *Page 637 right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved. Appeal dismissed. WEYGANDT, C.J., TURNER, WILLIAMS, MATTHIAS, HART and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur. BETTMAN, J., not participating.

The evidence adduced at the trial was not brought upon the record by a bill of exceptions. We must assume that the conviction of the appellant of second degree murder was adequately supported by the evidence. There is in the file an affidavit of one of the jurors that during the trial she was accosted by an unknown person who said to her: "I want you to send her to the penitentiary for life," and that this person was in attendance during the entire trial. The affidavit is silent as to