Cases

ORDER PER CURIAM. The State appeals the motion court’s grant of Mark Dudley’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, following an evi-dentiary hearing. Mr. Dudley cross-appeals the denial of his four other claims for *889relief in his post-conviction motion. Since a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum

51 S.W.3d 44 (2001) STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mark L. DUDLEY, Appellant. No. WD 58665. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. April 10, 2001. Motion to Transfer Denied May 29, 2001. Application for Transfer Denied August 21, 2001. *47 Emmett D. Queener, Asst. Public Defender, Columb

931 F.Supp. 773 (1996) Lillian D. DUDLEY, Pro Se, Clara L. Robertson, Aurelia Hart, Kumasi Mants, Lola Nowden, Melba Jean Easter, Caroline Glover, Twalla McCree, Calandra J. Cherry, Charlotte Hardy, Corey Crawford, Terri Howard-Stallworth, Stephanie Shields, Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant. Civil Action Nos. 94-D-508-N, 94-D-531-N, 94-D-610-N, 94-D-629-N to 94-D-632-N, 94-D-638-N, 94-D-642-N, 94-D-643-N, 94-D

285 S.W.3d 389 (2009) In re: Stephanie Suzanne BANKS, Incapacitated/Disabled. No. ED 91649. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Southern Division. May 12, 2009. *390 Thomas L. Hoeh, Perryville, MO, for appellant. Michael B. Dudley, Farmington, Carl D. Kinsky, Ste. Genevieve, MO, for respondents. PATRICIA L. COHEN,

STEPHANIE LEWIS * NO. 2022-CA-0409 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL STATE NATIONAL * INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., FOURTH CIRCUIT D/B/A QEO INSURANCE * GROUP, DAVID DEGRUY, STATE OF LOUISIANA RICHARD'S DISPOSAL, INC., ******* AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (IN ITS

Garsh, J. The plaintiff, Sally Terespolsky, has brought a claim under G.L.c. 151B, §4 alleging that she was terminated by her employer because she was pregnant.1 The suit was brought against her employer, the Law Offices of Stephanie K. Meilman, P.C., and Stephanie K. Meilman individually. This matter is now before the court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject m

559 F.3d 874 (2009) Jan FALLO; Pamela Epperson; Laura Muehlan; Verne Anderson; Amy Clark; Yulanda Diamond; Monica Licklider; Latonya Love; Mary McNurlin; Jessica Richardson; Kisha Robinson; Patricia Stuteville; Zach Green; Dene Beck; Carrie Boyer; Jamika Brewer; Yulanda Boyd; Kelly Brewster; Kristeena Cloud; Jenna Edelen; LaToya Hardin; Tameila Hardley; Tynesha Hooker; Luctoine Jean-Philippe; Barbara Johnson; DeAndre Johnson; Alonzo Jones; Margie Kelley;

STEPHANIE LEWIS * NO. 2022-CA-0409 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL STATE NATIONAL * INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., FOURTH CIRCUIT D/B/A QEO INSURANCE * GROUP, DAVID DEGRUY, STATE OF LOUISIANA RICHARD'S DISPOSAL, INC., ******* AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (IN ITS CAPACITY

32 S.W.3d 907 (2000) In re Charles T. PATILLO. No. 13-00-575-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi. November 9, 2000. *908 William A. Dudley, Corpus Christi, for Relator. Ann E. Coover, Coover & Coover, Corpus Christi, Real Party. Stephanie McCullough, Corpus Christi, pro se. Before Chief Justice SEERDEN

Ray Thornton, Justice. This appeal raises the question whether Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1, which requires that a defendant be tried within twelve months from the time she is charged with an offense in circuit court, applies to a revocation of probation. The trial court found that the rule does not apply because, in a probation revocation hearing, the defendant is not charged with an offense, but is alleged to

Robert H. Dudley, Justice. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant filed suit against the appellee, Mildred French, and her son, Thomas Q. French II. On September 16, 1988, the trial court, by summary judgment, dismissed appellee from the suit. Appellant’s case is still pending against the co-defendant, Thomas Q. French II. Although appellant could have asked for certification under A.R.C

Robert H. Dudley, Justice. The trial court found that the appellant-plaintiffs, who were purchasers of real estate, did not have a claim for misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, or outrage and granted summary judgment for the appellee-defendants. We affirm the decision. The facts, reviewed most favorably to appellants, are summarized as follows. Five men r

877 F.Supp. 1002 (1995) Stephanie K. DOYLE, Plaintiff, v. SENTRY INSURANCE, a Mutual Company, Inc., Defendant. Civ. No. 3:94CV614. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. March 3, 1995. *1003 *1004 Robert Patrick Geary, Richmond, VA, for plaintiff Stephanie K. Doyle.

ORDER PER CURIAM. Appellant, the United States of America (“United States”), appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting in part Respondents’ Pete C. D’Angelo, Heartland Bank, Glennon J. Baumann, Trustee, Richard M. Cooprider, Mercantile Bank, N.A. and Thomas D. Ahart, Trustee (collectively “the Homeowners”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and ordering the United States to reallocate $32,000 of

329 F.Supp.2d 1092 (2004) Judy DELONGA, Plaintiff, v. DIOCESE OF SIOUX FALLS; Robert J. Carlson, The Roman Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Sioux Falls; Fr. Paul V. Dudley, Former Bishop for the Diocese of Sioux Falls; Archdiocese of Milwaukee; the Roman Catholic Bishop for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee; and Father Bruce MacArthur, Defendants. No. CIV 03-4145. United States District Court, D. South Da

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Luz Denise Negron-Bennett and her husband, Salim A. Bennett, appeal the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for noncompliance with the court’s earlier order instructing them to particularize their complaint. Here, the

Cupit/Moak Motion Cupit/Moak contend that they have priority over MCF and WAG because they hold a "valid and enforceable agreement with Flechas that gives them legal priority over any of the subsequent claims of these creditors."26 Cupit/Moak contend that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does not apply to their Contract, or if it does, their Contract is exempt from the UCC. Consequentl

PER CURIAM. The appeals consolidated in this opinion arise from lawsuits challenging three proposed initiatives — a tobacco tax initiative, a minimum wage initiative, and a payday *644loan initiative.1 The underlying suits sought to prevent the initiatives from appearing on Missouri’s ballot for the November 2012 election. Each of the case

785 N.E.2d 1084 (2003) Lois BLACK, Administratrix of the Estate of Willie Black, deceased, and widow in her own right, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. A.C. & S., INC., A & M Insulation Company, A.P. Green Services, Inc., Brand Insulations, Inc., Combustion Engineering, Inc., General Refractories, North American Refractories, Owens Corning Fiberglas, Rapid American Corp., Universal Refractories, and William A. Pope Co., Appellees (Defendan

GRIMM, Judge. In this mechanic’s lien case, plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s judgment sustaining motions for summary judgment in favor of defendants Robert and Stephanie Doerr. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Although plaintiffs brief sets forth four points relied on; only three points of error are, in effect, raised. First, the trial court erred in sustaining defendants’ summary judgm