Cases

RILEY, Chief Judge. These consolidated appeals arise from a class action led by Ronald C. Tussey, Charles E. Fisher, and Timothy Pinnell (participants) as representatives of a class of current and former employees of ABB, Inc. (ABB) who participated in two ABB retirement plans1 governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. After a sixtee

CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge: Appellants, Ronald Haynes and Jahmal Rose, each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. Both contend that special mitigating circumstances exist that should have resulted in a downward departure from the sentencing guildeines’ range. Haynes and Rose appeal their sentences imposed on February 7 and 11, 1992 respectively in

133 N.J. 282 (1993) 627 A.2d 654 JESSICA MONTELLS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. RONALD HAYNES, ROBERT WITTY, ROBERT SANDLER, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND VINCENT SCARDA, MAURICE R. GREENBERG, XYZ CORPORATION, AND JOHN DOE, DEFENDANTS. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued March 29, 1993.

2023 IL App (1st) 220296 No. 1-22-0296 Opinion filed June 2, 2023 SIXTH DIVISION IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

199 Ga. App. 288 (1991) 404 S.E.2d 585 HAYNES v. THE STATE. FLOURNOY v. THE STATE. A90A2155, A90A2156. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided February 15, 1991. Rehearing Denied March 26, 1991. Robert C. Richardson, Jr., for appellant (case no. A90A2155). Michael L. Bankston, for appellant (case

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge. Defendants are prison officials and law enforcement personnel at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”) who were sued in their individual and official capacities for damages resulting from the death of an inmate, Jimmy J. Haynes. He died from injuries received while being moved from the prison infirmary to a security cell. Defendants appeal from the denial of their motions for summary

887 F.2d 700 Edna M. HAYNES, Individually as mother of Jimmy J. Haynes,deceased, and as administratrix of the estate ofJimmy J. Haynes, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Ronald S. MARSHALL, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 88-3969. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. Argued June 13, 1989.Decided Oct. 12, 1989.

02/23/2024 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 3, 2024 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TRAVIS HAYNES Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. C1901995 / 19 01494 James M. Lammey, Judge ___________________________________

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 05-MAY-2020 07:51 AM

*790ORDER HERMAN J. WEBER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court pursuant to plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (doc. no. 105), defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (doc. no. 106) and defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. no. 107). In sum, both parties have requested this Court to revisit its Order entered April 3, 1987 (doc. no. 1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CAROL BAGLEY AMON, United States Magistrate. The defendant Kleinewefers GmbH (Kleinewefers) has moved to strike the discovery demands made by plaintiff Ronald Haynes (Haynes), codefendant Lembo Corporation (Lembo), and third party defendant Kalex Chemical Products, Inc. (Kalex) and seeks an order from this court directing that all discovery of the defendant proceed in accordance with

Brown, J. ¶1 Jack and Vernal Haynes and the Haynes’ daughter and son-in-law, Richard and Darleta Woodbury, appeal the trial court’s order enjoining their use of an easement road on the lands of Ronald and Anadee Snyder and Ronald’s brother and sister-in-law, Edward Snyder and B. Louise Snyder. The Hayneses and Woodburys mainly contend the trial court erred in not recognizing that unstated appurtenant road easement rights were tra

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, Fenal Law § 70.08, New York’s persistent felony offender statute pursuant to which the defendant was sentenced, is not unconstitutional (see People v Leon, 10 NY3d 122 [2008], cert denied 554 US 926 [2008]; People v Winfield, 63 AD3d 969 [2009]; cf. People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116 [2009], cert denied 558 US —, 130 S Ct 104 [2009]; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61 [2005

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 25, 2001 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RONALD HAYNES Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 98-B-1062 Seth Norman, Judge No. M2000-00204-CCA-R3-CD - Filed June 1, 2001 The defendant was indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury for especially aggrava

659 S.W.2d 638 (1983) Bill C. HAYNES et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF ABILENE et al., Respondents. No. C-2010. Supreme Court of Texas. November 9, 1983. *639 Scarborough, Black, Tarpley & Scarborough, Beverly Tarpley, Abilene, for petitioners. Harvey Cargill, Jr., City Atty., Abilene, Henderson, Bryan & Wolfe, Ronal

Kristie Haynes petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to set aside its order granting the defendants' motion to set aside the default judgment entered against them on Haynes's complaint in an action resulting from a vehicle collision and alleging negligence and wantonness. We grant the petition and issue the writ. I. Facts and Procedural History Though not stated directly, it appears from the submissions filed in conjunc

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DELANEY G. MARKS, No. 17-99007 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv- 02458-LHK v. RONALD DAVIS, Warden, OPINION California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Cal

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY C. OLIVER, No. 20-99000 Petitioner-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:10-cv-08404- ODW RONALD DAVIS, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent-Appellant. OPINION Appeal from the United States D

This is an appeal of a paving assessment suit by four landowners.1 Plaintiff landowners urged that the paving assessments levied against them and their property were invalid because they were arbitrary.2 They further alleged that they were not "abutting" landowners. The trial court ruled that the paving assessments were arbitrary and unenforceable.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered May 13, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. C