Cases

676 F.3d 144 (2012) ROSETTA STONE LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. The UK Intellectual Property Law Society, Amicus Curiae, Eric Goldman; Public Citizen; Martin Schwimmer, Limited Intervenors. International Trademark Association; Blues Destiny Records, LLC; Carfax, Incorporated; Ford Motor Company; Harmon International Industries, Incorporated; the Media Institute; Viacom, Inc.; Burlington Coat F

770 A.2d 36 (2001) Rosetta DAVIS, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Franz MAUTE, Defendant Below, Appellee. No. 307, 2000. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: March 13, 2001. Decided: March 30, 2001. Bartholomew J. Dalton (argued), and Laura J. Kominkiewicz, of Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant. David L. Baumbe

Karen R. Baker, Judge. Appellant Rosetta Davis was convicted of aggravated robbery by a jury in Independence County Circuit Court. She was sentenced to twenty-three years in the Arkansas Department of Correction to be served consecutively with a sentence she was already serving. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to grant her motions for dire

732 F.Supp.2d 628 (2010) ROSETTA STONE LTD., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. Case No. 1:09cv736 (GBL/TCB). United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. August 2, 2010. *629 Warren Thomas Allen, II, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Jonathan David Frieden, S

Tom Glaze, Justice. This is another appeal arising out of a Phillips County election, this time involving the election of a justice of the peace and three Democratic Committee positions elected from Justice of the Peace District 9. This particular district was created as a result of a federal district court proceeding in Varner v. Clatworthy, U.S.C.C. Case No. H-C-92-19 (E.D. Ark. 1994). In Varner, the feder

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROSETTA DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-245 (TJK) TOM VILSACK, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Rosetta Davis, a former Department of Agriculture employee, brings several claims under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. According to Davis, the De

94 Ill. App.3d 809 (1981) 419 N.E.2d 724 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROSETTA DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 80-374. Illinois Appellate Court — Third District. Opinion filed April 9, 1981. *810 Robert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellan

NUMBER 13-19-00431-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG KEVIN MARTIN, JAMIE MARTIN, AND ASHLEY LUSK, Appellants, v. ROSETTA RESOURCES OPERATING, LP, Appellee. On appeal from the 156th District Court

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 20-0898 ══════════ Rosetta Resources Operating, LP, Petitioner, v. Kevin Martin, Jamie Martin, and Ashley Lusk, Respondents ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals fo

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Submitted on Briefs February 25, 2002 Session ERICA R. SLAUGHTER v. ROSETTA ROWE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 99C1839 Samuel H. Payne, Judge FILED MARCH 18, 2002 No. E2001-00840-COA-R3-CV Erica R. Slaughter (“

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED May 14, 2013 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK ROSETTA L. DALTON, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge. In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs claim a Due Process Clause violation because of the alleged failure of defendant state officials to administer properly a state-sponsored disability compensation fund. For the following reasons, we *244 affirm t

The defendants were indicted and convicted for the offense of false pretense. Alabama Code 1975, Section 13-3-90 Since the issues in these cases are identical, the judgments of the Circuit Court are affirmed on authority of Gloria JeanSmith v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 3 Div. 378 (Ms. October 27, 1981) AFFIRMED All Judges concur

194 Va. 557 (1953) OUNER ANDERSON PATTERSON v. ROSETTA ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF PHILIP ANDERSON, DECEASED. Record No. 3970. Supreme Court of Virginia. January 26, 1953. Anna F. Hedrick, for appellant. J. B. Allman, B. A. Davis, III, R. G. Allman, for appellee. Present, All the Justices. 1. Appellant cl

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie A. Noel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction, denying as moot his motion for appointment of specialists, *188granting the motion to dismiss claims against Lt

ELLIS, Judge: Dixie Electric Membership Corporation is seeking to expropriate a 100 foot wide servitude for an electric transmission line across the property of defendants Rosetta Davis Scott et al. The total acreage taken is 13.39 acres. After trial on the merits, the district judge awarded $13,617.63 for the value of the servitude, and $11,766.69 in severance damages. Plaintiff has appealed, seeking a reduction of that awa

120 S.W.3d 185 (2003) Allan Kyle DAVIS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. No. 2001-CA-002262-MR. Court of Appeals of Kentucky. October 10, 2003. As Modified October 31, 2003. *186 Bill Barber, Owensboro, KY, for appellant. Albert B. Chandler III, Attorney General, J. Gary Bale, Assistant At

FAY, Circuit Judge: Appellant, Rosetta McKinzy, was convicted of second degree murder in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. Before trial, defense counsel requested disclosure of a key juvenile witness’ juvenile record. The trial judge denied disclosure and also prohibited cross examination about the juvenile record. After exhausting her state remedies, appellant applie

PER CURIAM. Interlocutory appeal dismissed.

OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Harold Davis has filed a timely and courteous Tenn.R.App.P. 39 petition requesting this court to reconsider its opinion filed in this case on December 10,1999. The petition raises two issues. First, Mr. Davis questions the impartiality of a member of this court. Second, Mr. Davis asserts that the court should have reinstated his civil rights claim that had been dismissed by the trial court.