Cases

JUDGMENT PER CURIUM. This case is before us on appeal from the Tax Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as well as the Tax Court’s denial of the motion to vacate that decision. The issues were considered on the record and briefs submitted by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. CIR. R. 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

Armstead, Justice: *37 Petitioner, as Executor of the Estate of Roger G. Fussell, appeals the February 7, 2018, order of the Circuit Court of Randolph County that affirmed an order of the Randolph County Commission, which, in turn, affirmed the findings of its special fiduciary commissioner. Th

278 P.3d 8 (2012) 2012 OK CIV APP 44 Richard C. BARNETT, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Darryl K. SIMMONS and Paul K. Franks, Individually and as Partners d/b/a Rock Oil Company, Defendants/Appellants. Nos. 107,957, 107,560. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.

HARGRAVE, J. 11 Plaintiff? Richard C. Barnett (Barnett) sued defendants Darryl K. Simmons and Paul A. Franks, individually and as partners doing business as Rock Oil Company (Rock Oil), seeking unpaid royalties on sales of oil allegedly owed to him by Rock Oil as operator of a well producing on the Osborn lease. Barnett alleged that he had been underpaid for royalties on the Osborn lease and that Rock Oil had breached its fidu

*451ROGERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BOGGS, C. J., BATCHELDER, GILMAN, GIBBONS, COOK, McKEAGUE, and GRIFFIN, JJ., joined. MARTIN, J. (pp. 451-58), delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which DAUGHTREY, MOORE, COLE, and CLAY, JJ., joined. OPINION ROGERS, Circuit Judge. The issue in this case is whether t

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 67 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 68 OPINION Appellant Jackie Glynn Simmons appeals from his conviction for possession of a c

RILEY, Chief Judge. In 2011, Simmons Foods, Inc., made a claim under two property insurance policies it had with Industrial Risk Insurers and Ironshore Specialty Insurance Compa *795 ny (collectively, the insurers). 2 The insurers denied a

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-07-00103-CV MARK E. DOYAL, Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, MR. GARY JOHNSON, MS. JANIE COCKRELL, JOHN GILBERT, RICHARD C. THALER, ROBERT R. CHANCE, TIMOTHY C. SIMMONS, AUSTIN B. MCCOMB, JR., ROGER D. SANFORD, MICHAEL E. TINDALL, CRAIG B. PRICE,

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March

586 S.E.2d 809 (2003) Roger SIMMONS and wife, Judith Simmons, Plaintiffs, v. Emily Simmons ARRIOLA, Defendant. No. COA02-1344. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. October 21, 2003. Pope, McMillan, Kutteh, Simon & Privette, P.A., by Charles A. Schieck, Statesville, for plaintiffs-appellants. *810 Homesley, Jones, Gaines

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2014 Term FILED June 5, 2014 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK No. 13-0217 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979); Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000). BOOTH, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

*372DECISION AND ORDER MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge. Pro se plaintiff Roger Simmons commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with the filing of a complaint on November 9, 1994. On November 30, 1994, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint and his action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

665 S.E.2d 147 (2008) S.B. SIMMONS LANDSCAPING & EXCAVATING, INC., Plaintiff, v. Roger BOGGS and wife, Mary Beth Boggs, Defendants. No. COA07-1563. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. August 19, 2008. *148 Stephen E. Lawing, High Point, for plaintiff-appellant. Roberson Haworth & Reese, P.L.L.C., by Christopher C.

270 B.R. 295 (2001) SIMMONS FOODS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL CITY BANK, INC., Defendant. No. 98-4035-RDR. United States District Court, D. Kansas. October 17, 2001. *296 *297 Brock R. Snyder, Law Office of Brock R. Snyder, Topeka, KS, Troy A. Unruh, The Advocates Group, Pittsburg, KS, for pl

912 P.2d 217 (1996) Brian SIMMONS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. No. 24932. Supreme Court of Nevada. February 29, 1996. *218 William G. Rogers and Mark E. Haines, Carson City, for Appellant. Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City; Robert E. Estes, District Attorney, and Keith Loomis, Special D

RYAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART My colleagues’ resolution of the question presented by the plaintiffs’ collateral es-toppel claim is eminently correct and so I join part IV of the court’s opinion. However, because I believe Ohio’s voucher program to be constitutional under the First Amen

72 F.Supp.2d 834 (1999) Doris SIMMONS-HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Susan Tave ZELMAN, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Ohio, Defendant. Sue Gatton, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Susan Tave Zelman, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Ohio, et al., Defendants. Nos. 1:99 CV 1740, 1:99 CV 1818. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

OPINION ANNE GARDNER, Justice. I. Introduction Appellant S.G. appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to M.E.M.N. She contends in four issues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding her appeal frivolous, that she was denied effective assistance of counsel during the post-trial period, and that the evide

Baird, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that determines that the School Voucher Program must be stricken from Am.Sub.H.B. No. 117 because it violates the one-subject rule. The one-subject rule “was incorporated into the constitution, for the purpose of making it a permanent rule of