Cases

ORDER Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, United States District Court Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion and denies Defendant’s motion. BACKGROUND This case arises from a single property owner offering two separate but abutting portions of her real property as se

PER CURIAM. This matter is before the Court by way of a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals’ decision in State v. Samuel, 400 S.C. 593, 735 S.E.2d 541 (Ct.App.2012), reversing the trial court’s pre-trial order excluding a statement that Kendra Samuel (Petitioner) made to law enforcement in connection -with a polygraph examination. B

================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 154 The People &c., Respondent, v. Samuel McLean, Appellant. Danielle Neroni Reilly, for appellant. Gerald A. Dwyer, for respondent. SMITH, J.: We hold that when police are told by a suspec

Boggs, Judge. Jai Ganesh Lodging, Inc. and Laxesh, L.R (collectively, “appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of David M. Smith, Inc. (“DMS”) and B & J Reed Construction, LLC (“B & J Reed”), an order rescinding its previous order allowing Baron Reed and Jeremy Reed to be added as defendants, and an order excluding the testimon

PERREN, J. *453Don Smith Sr. and Gladys Smith created a family trust naming their five children as beneficiaries. As is often the case, upon the demise of the trustors, a dispute arose *588amongst the trust beneficiaries concerning the management of the

WINTER, Chief Judge: The Federal Labor Relations Authority (the “Authority”) moves to dismiss Samuel M. Rizzitelli’s petition for review of a decision by the Authority’s General Counsel not to issue an unfair labor practice complaint. We grant the Authority’s motion and dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the General Counsel’s decision was not a

HUNSTEIN, Justice. Appellant Christopher Rayshun Smith was tried and convicted of murder and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Kevin Daniel and aggravated assault of Kamenika Whatley.1 Smith appeals, claiming three instances of trial court error. Though we find no merit in any of Smith’s trial phase enumerations, we do find error with regard to his sentences and therefore we

The opinion of the court was delivered by Biles, J.: Robin Smith appeals her sentence after pleading guilty to trafficking contraband in a jail. She argues the district court should not have included a Missouri municipal ordinance violation for endangering the welfare of a *474 child as

MELTON, Justice, dissenting. Because I cannot agree that the trial court’s comments in this case did not improperly bolster the eyewitness’s testimony in this *272case, I must respectfully dissent. In its attempt to explain to the jury that the witness was not feeling well, the trial court took a step too far when it stated, “I want you to know that the [

BENHAM, Justice. Appellant Roderick Smith was convicted of malice murder and other offenses arising out of the shooting death of his girlfriend, Sherita Dunham. Smith appeals his conviction and sentence and the order denying his motion for new trial.1 We affirm the convictions, but remand for resentencing. 1. The record belies Smith’s claim that the trial evidence was insuffic

NAHMIAS, Justice. Appellant Deonte T’varis Smith challenges his conviction for felony murder in connection with the death of his two-month-old daughter, Keymaya Smith. Appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the State to cross-examine him about tattoos on his arm and by allowing the State’s expert witness to give a demonstration using a bab

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2023-2887 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CA-005268-O _____________________________ SAMUEL MALACHI BLEUS, Appellant, v. TRISHA M. BAILEY,

Blackwell, Justice. Tariq Smith was tried by a Fulton County jury and convicted of murder and several other crimes in connection with the fatal shooting of Emmanuel Opoku-Afari. Smith appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it removed one of the jurors after the evidence was closed. We find no merit in that contention, but we note that the trial court erred when it fai

Melton, Justice. Following a jury trial, Ricky Smith was found guilty of malice murder, aggravated assault, and various other offenses in connection with the shooting of Steven Smith and the shooting death of Tajuana Stroud. 1 On appeal Smith contends, among other things, that the

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ════════════ No. 09-0497 ════════════ Tyler Scoresby, M.D., Peti

Thompson, Chief Justice. This is an appeal by the warden from the grant of habeas corpus relief to petitioner Andrew Magnuson based on the habeas court’s determination that Magnuson’s guilty pleas were invalid and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that follow, we find no error in the habeas court’s conclusion that Magnuson’s guilty pleas were in

OPINION Opinion by Chief Justice MORRISS. When, more than six months after the dismissal of their lawsuit for want of prosecution, Anita and Jonathan Saint1 learned of the suit’s dismissal, they filed a bill of review proceeding in an attempt to get their suit back on track. At the trial on their bill of review, the jury’s answers to three of the jury question

Petition for certification denied.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 57 Conn. App. 64 (AC 18658), is denied. Toni M. Smith-Rosario, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided May 4, 2000

McFadden, Judge. Cassandra Smith, a former administrative employee at Albany State University, sued Everette Freeman and Abiodun Ojemakinde — respectively, the University’s president and vice president for academic affairs — for violating her constitutional and statutory *427rights. She argued, among other things, that they fired her without due process of law. She al