Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Rose v. Aaron”
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals SETH P. RHODEBECK 300 DEXTER AVENUE LYNN DEVAUGHN CLERK MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104-3741 ASSISTANT CLERK TELEPHONE 334-229-0733 July 18, 2025 CL-2025-0396 Ex parte Michael Aaron Rose PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Michael Aaron Rose v. Trellanee Shrae Rose) (Mobile Circuit Court: DR-24-900809). NOTICE
People of Michigan v. Aaron Clark Rosepublic domain
Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan December 22, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice 161085
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-14-00125-CV CAROL ROSE AND CAROL ROSE, APPELLANTS INC. V. LORI AARON, PHILLIP AARON, APPELLEES AND AARON RANCH ------------ FROM THE 235TH
Rose v. Aaronpublic domain
345 Mich. 613 (1956) 76 N.W.2d 829 ROSE v. AARON. Docket No. 21, Calendar No. 46,707. Supreme Court of Michigan. Decided May 14, 1956. Harry H. Anbender and David Anbender, for plaintiff. Lee C. McManus, for defendant. DETHMERS, C.J. Plaintiff filed a bill of complaint, the prayer of which asked for n
State v. Rosepublic domain
BREARCLIFFE, Judge: ¶1 Aaron Michael Rose appeals his convictions after a jury trial on two counts of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen. We affirm. Issues ¶2 Rose contends the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting, under Rule 404(c), Ariz. R. Evid., evidence of his juvenile delinquency adjudication for child molestation. The state contends that the
People v. Rosepublic domain
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
People v. Rosepublic domain
Clark, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Pelella, J.), entered January 13, 2017, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. At roughly 2:40 a.m. on February 26, 2015, Kevin Mauser, a sergeant in the Broome County Sheriffs Office, received a radio dispatch informing
Rose v. Buraspublic domain
PER CURIAM:* Granville Rose filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against several defendants to raise several claims concerning his conviction for sexual battery. The district court dismissed the suit as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and denied the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion that Rose filed with respect to t
Janvey v. Proskauer Rose, LLPpublic domain
(July 24, 2014) MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ [15] Motion to Transfer Case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In response, Defendants filed 'a [29] Cross-Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Upon considerati
Aaron Gearlds, Jr. v. Entergy Services, Incorporatpublic domain
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Aaron Gearlds, Jr. appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his suit alleging claims of equitable estoppel and breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The district court dismissed the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because we conclude that Gearlds stated a
Rose v. Rosepublic domain
OPINION OF THE COURT Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J. In this matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife (hereinafter wife) moves to amend the complaint. Defendant husband (hereinafter husband) opposes the motion. This court held a trial on the grounds for divorce. At the conclusion of the trial, the court granted husband’s motion to dismiss the complaint for divorce on the grounds of cruel and in
State v. Rosepublic domain
ORDER This case came before the Court for oral argument on December 10, 2001, pursuant to an order that directed both parties to appear in order to show cause why the issues raised by this appeal should not summarily be decided. When the pro se defendant, Jeffrey Rose (defendant), failed to appear at the scheduled oral argument,1 the Court announced that it would decide this case without oral ar
State v. Rosepublic domain
748 A.2d 1283 (2000) STATE v. Bruce G. ROSE. No. 98-278-C.A. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. April 10, 2000. Present WEISBERGER, C.J., and LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ. Jane M. McSoley, Aaron L. Weisman, Providence, for Plaintiff. Paula Lynch Hardiman, Paula Rosin, Providence, for Defendant. OPINION PER CURIAM.
People v. Rosepublic domain
People v Rose (2025 NY Slip Op 02967) People v Rose 2025 NY Slip Op 02967 Decided on May 15, 2025 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
State v. Rosepublic domain
[Cite as State v. Rose, 2023-Ohio-1611.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 1-22-15 v. GRANT ROSE, OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial
Aaron Santoro v. Statepublic domain
SECOND DIVISION MILLER, P. J., HODGES and PIPKIN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS COURT.
State v. Rosepublic domain
Johnson, J. (dissenting) — No individual constitutional right is more specifically recognized and protected than the right of an individual to be secure in his or her own home from unreasonable searches and seizures. Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution specifically state as much. The majority gives this right short shrift, finding no expectation
Rose v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A. LLCpublic domain
882 N.E.2d 112 (2007) Felice Bressler ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 1-06-0262, 1-06-1266. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division. December 28, 2007. *113 Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Chicago (Bradley B. Falkof and Charla L. Hausler, of counsel), for Appellant
Aaron Ostine v. State of Tennesseepublic domain
10/29/2024 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 10, 2024 Session AARON OSTINE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cheatham County Nos. 16307, 16705 Larry J. Wallace, Judge ___________________________________
United States v. Aaron Holmes, Jr.public domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10266 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00192- v. SMB-1 AARON GORDON HOLMES, Jr., AKA Aaron Gordon Holmes, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court