Cases

Ellington, Justice. **59Jesse Lynn Rowland was convicted of felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Mike Whittle.1 On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting his custodial statements, in making certain evidentiary rulings, and in charging the jury. Finding no reversible error, we affi

306 Ga. 59 FINAL COPY S19A0289. ROWLAND v. THE STATE. ELLINGTON, Justice. Jesse Lynn Rowland was convicted of felony murder in connection with the shooting death of Mike Whittle.1 On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting his custodial statements, in making certain evidentiary rulings, and in charging the jury. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence at trial showed th

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2018-CP-00669-COA GREGORY PAUL CARR A/K/A GREGORY APPELLANT CARR A/K/A GREGORY P. CARR v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/29/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. ASHLEY HINES COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COUR

FOURTH DIVISION DILLARD, P. J., MERCIER and PINSON, 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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ February 05, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A19A1307. DERRICK CARR v. THE STATE. In 2015, Derrick Carr entered a negotiated plea to two counts of theft by receiving stolen property. He was sentenced to a total term of five years to be served on probation. After Carr violated the terms of his proba

LEE, G.J., for the Court: ¶ 1. This appeal arises from the trial, court’s denial of Timothy Lee Carr’s motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). Carr now appeals, arguing the trial court erred: (1) by., allowing the State to amend the indictment without providing him sufficient notice; (2) by failing to have a bifurcated sentencing hearing before sentencing him as a habitual offender; and (3) by .relying on c

ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS (ECF Nos., 43, 40) JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Jennell Carr and Phyllis Sierra’s (“Plaintiffs,” or, “Class Representatives”) Motion for an Order Granting Fi

ORDER KRAVITZ, District Judge. In this action, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have failed reasonably to accommodate disabled individuals who require or seek essential services from the Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS), in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., and f

KING, Justice, dissenting: ¶ 16, Because Í disagree that a Teag-ue 3 analysis applies, and because the majority ignores serious errors during Carr’s sentencing, I respectfully dissent. ¶ 17. The majority glosses over most of the facts of this case, .so a detailed recitation is necessary. Immediately after the jury pronounced Carr guilty of manslaughter

CARLEY, Justice. Ajury found Lashandra Carr guilty of malice murder and related offenses. After the denial of a motion for new trial, her attorney filed an untimely notice of appeal, which was dismissed pursuant to an order expressly stating that she could file a request for an out-of-time appeal in the trial court. See Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Thereafter, Ms. Carr did not file such a reques

770 F.Supp.2d 1080 (2011) Christopher CARR, Roxanne Clayton, and Brian Bennett, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY et al., Defendants. Randolph K. Jordan and Kimberly J. Jordan, Plaintiffs, v. International Game Technology, et al., Defendants. Nos. 3:09-CV-0584-ECR-RAM, 3:09-CV-0585-ECR-RAM. United States District Court, D. Nevada. March 16, 2011.

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH JUN 2 1998 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

McKAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I agree fully with the majority opinion that no probable cause existed to believe that the video tapes would be located at the named place to be searched, i.e., Defendant’s residence, when the magistrate issued the warrant for the search of the residence. The affidavit supporting the warrant provided insufficient facts to support a nexus between the contraband or illegal acti

Wheeler, J. The indorsement of the note by the appellant’s testator, was not in the character of an ordinary indorser or assignor. It was in that of a guarantor or surety. He was not a payee, transferring the note by his indorsement. He put bis name upon the back of the note, which was payable to others, who transferred it to the plaintiff. He, therefore, is not to be considered in the light of a common indorser, and was entitled

BARNES, Circuit Judge. Appellant was charged with four armed robberies of Savings and Loan Associations insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)). There were four counts: I, on January 22, 1960, at American Savings and Loan Association, Whittier, California;

OPINION SEERDEN, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a summary judgment. In the underlying action, Herbert and Gertrudis Carr sued Mobile Video Tapes, Inc., d/b/a KRGV-TV5, the Humane Society of the Upper Valley, and Peter Stout, an investigator for the Humane Society. The Carrs pleaded causes of action involving civil conspiracy, malicious prosecution, defamation and false-light invasion of privacy, infli

MURPHY, District Judge. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in an action under § 16(b), Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. § 78p(b), and see § 27, Id. § 78aa, to recover profit realized by a ¡former treasurer from the salé and purchase of its common stock on the open market within less than six months. In opposition defendant denies engaging in short swing trading for speculative purposes;1

*768OPINION GORBEY, District Judge. Plaintiffs in this action are attacking the constitutionality of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. § 460 et seq.). Plaintiffs filed a five count complaint which was dismissed on April 27, 1972. On June 5, 1973, the Court of Appeals reversed that decision as to count III only, and affirmed it as to a

Argued April 11, 1933. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for damages resulting from his being struck by defendant's automobile. Defendant appeals. We will consider but a single assignment of error. Some eighteen years before the present accident, plaintiff was struck by a railroad train and his head was very seriously injured. One of the questions involved in the present case was whether or not his existing condition was the result of the earlier accident, rather than of the o

341 F.Supp. 339 (1972) Andrew ROWLAND, a minor by his guardian Lewis Rowland, et al. v. Curtis TARR, National Director of Selective Service, Henry R. Sherrard, Acting Pennsylvania State Director of Selective Service, Local Board No. 138. Civ. A. No. 71-1480. United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. April 27, 1972. *340 H