Cases

Pigott, J. (dissenting). I concur in the majority’s holding that the trial court erred in failing to issue the accomplice-in-fact instruction, because there was a reasonable view of the evidence that Mogavero “participated in an offense based upon some of the same facts or conduct which ma[d]e up the offense on trial” (People v Berger, 52 NY2d 214, 219 [1981]). In my view, however, that error was harmless because t

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: Appellant Margie Brandon (“Brandon”) filed suit against the Sage Corporation (“Sage”), alleging racial discrimination, wrongful termination,' and retaliation, in violation of Title VII as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“§ 1981”) and the comparable Texas Commission on Human Rights

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED. Jose Lopez, Sr., James Rovella, Luisa St. Pierre and Timothy Pitkin, detectives in the Hartford Police Department, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Chatigny, J.) denying their motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified

State of New York OPINION Court of Appeals This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. No. 75 Sage Systems, Inc., Respondent, v. Michael Liss, &c., Appellant. Christopher A. Raimondi, for appellant. Fred L. Seeman, for respondent. RIVERA, J.:

Matter of Sage H. (Lovette H.) (2022 NY Slip Op 02412) Matter of Sage H. (Lovette H.) 2022 NY Slip Op 02412 Decided on April 13, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judicia

[Cite as State v. Rivera, 2023-Ohio-1788.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 22CA011875 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE EDWIN RIVERA

People v Rivera (2021 NY Slip Op 03977) People v Rivera 2021 NY Slip Op 03977 Decided on June 17, 2021 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 4

People v Rivera (2022 NY Slip Op 00583) People v Rivera 2022 NY Slip Op 00583 Decided on January 28, 2022 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law

Case: 14-51320 Document: 00513306197 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 REVISED December 14, 2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ELVIN G. RIVERA (SC 20277) Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Vertefeuille, Js.* Syllabus Convicted of breach of the peace in the second degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, and threatening in the second degree in connection with a confrontation involving C, a tow truck driver, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, inte

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered July 15, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree (two counts). It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of assault in the first degree (Pen

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered July 15, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree (two counts). It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of assault in the first degree (Pen

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS Gregory Sage, ' No. 08-14-00055-CV Appellant, ' Appeal from the v. '

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 1203 KA 10-02117 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NOEL R. RIVERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTE

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-20-00080-CV Rosanna BARRERA, Sage Barrera, and Jenesey Barrera, Appellants v. Dean T. CHERER and Chererco, LLC,

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge, dissenting, joined by DENNIS, PRADO, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges, in full; and joined except for footnote 2 by SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge: The baseball legend Yogi Berra is credited with the unintentionally humorous statement, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”1 By refusing, in a terse footnote, to address the rule of orderli

OPINION BY DANIELS, J.: ¶ 1 Appellant appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on September 22, 2006. For the following reasons, we remand this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the after-discovered evidence issue. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2 The underlying incident in this case occurred on November 14, 2002, in Philade

El Juez Asociado Señor Corrada del Río emitió la opinión del Tribunal. ■ “El tiempo no es creador de derechos, no es destructor de derechos; pero existe una fuerza en el mismo para modificar los hechos, a la cual se vinculan las relaciones del derecho.” (Énfasis suplido.(1) Hoy nos corresponde resolver una interesante contro-versia de

This appeal is the sequel to the case of Clark v. Sage,95 Idaho 79, 502 P.2d 323 (1972). The facts initially giving rise to this appeal are set out and discussed with considerable particularity therein. The primary issue before the court in this appeal is whether the Industrial Commission erred in departing from its prior approval of a contingent fee agreement entered into between claimant-appellant Wade S.

El Juez Asociado Señor Negrón García emitió la opinión del Tribunal. H-1 Al decidir esta apelación evocamos nuevamente los pro-nunciamientos en Pueblo v. Mattei Torres, 121 D.P.R. 600, 602-603 (1988), respecto a “que en ‘“procesos criminales contra acusados de violación, existe una tendencia a conside-rar la perjudicada como una pieza más de evidencia. El rol de la víctima es establecer un c