Cases

Order entered September 19, 2017 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01416-CR No. 05-16-01417-CR SUSAN GAY PRUITT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Order entered March 9, 2018 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01416-CR No. 05-16-01417-CR SUSAN GAY PRUITT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal

Order entered January 31, 2018 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01416-CR No. 05-16-01417-CR SUSAN GAY PRUITT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from

Affirmed and Opinion Filed January 31, 2018 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01416-CR No. 05-16-01417-CR SUSAN GAY PRUITT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Order entered January 31, 2018 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01416-CR No. 05-16-01417-CR SUSAN GAY PRUITT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from

Order entered August 1, 2017 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01416-CR No. 05-16-01417-CR SUSAN GAY PRUITT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On

Affirmed and Opinion Filed January 31, 2018 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01416-CR No. 05-16-01417-CR SUSAN GAY PRUITT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Order entered October 27, 2017 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01416-CR No. 05-16-01417-CR SUSAN GAY PRUITT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge Although this case has spanned nearly seven years, its genesis lasted only seven days. That was the length of the insubordination suspension that Plaintiff Susan Morris claimed was discriminatorily imposed on her. Morris, who is white, worked as a manager in the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Civil Rights for almost a decade. Her supervisor was Director Karen Higginbotham,

Affirmed by published per curiam opinion. OPINION PER CURIAM: Jo D. Molinary (Molinary), in her capacity as trustee of the Susan Pruitt Cloud Land Trust, appeals from the district court’s entry of final judgment in favor of Powell Mountain Coal Company, Inc. (Powell Mountain) following our remand of this case to the district

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerome Anderson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible err

PER CURIAM: Jerome Anderson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Anderson v. Pruitt, No. 1:10-cv-00553-NCT-PTS (M.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the

ORDER RONALD A. WHITE, District Judge. I. Introduction Before the court are the cross-motions of the parties for summary judgment. This lawsuit is a challenge to a federal regulation. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “the Act”) regulates the individual health insurance market primarily through “Exchanges” set up along state lines. An Exchange is a

907 N.E.2d 973 (2009) Tommy PRUITT, Appellant (Petitioner below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent below). No. 15S00-0512-PD-617. Supreme Court of Indiana. June 16, 2009. Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Thomas C. Hinesley, Kathleen Cleary, Laura L. Volk, Deputy Public Defenders, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant. Gregory F. Zo

RUCKER, Justice, dissenting. On direct appeal I was convinced that Pruitt was mentally retarded and thus not eligible for a death sentence. See Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90, 123-26 (Ind.2005) (Rucker, J., dissenting). After examining the evidence presented to the post-conviction court, I am even more convinced today. Pruitt's status has not changed. He was and still is mentally retarded. I would therefore reve

125 F.3d 231 45 ERC 1289, 138 Oil & Gas Rep. 215,28 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,035 Jo D. MOLINARY, Trustee of the Susan Pruitt Cloud LandTrust, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.POWELL MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Wax CoalCompany, Defendant-Appellant.National Mining Association; United States Of America,Amici Curiae.Jo D. MOLINARY, Trustee of the Susan Pruitt Cloud LandTrust, Plaintiff-A

[Cite as Pruitt v. Pruitt, 2022-Ohio-2058.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY ANDREA M.K. PRUITT : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 29331 : v.

514 S.E.2d 639 (1999) 270 Ga. 745 PRUITT v. The STATE. No. S98P1962. Supreme Court of Georgia. March 19, 1999. Reconsideration Denied April 1, 1999. *643 Thomas M. Cole, Whelchel & Dunlap, Chandelle T. Summer, Summer & Summer, Gregory W. Valpey, Valpey & Walker, Gainesville, fo

662 N.E.2d 540 (1996) 278 Ill. App.3d 194 214 Ill.Dec. 974 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Serrick PRUITT, Anthony Brooks, and Johnnie Cheatham, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 1-94-2387, 1-94-2388 and 1-94-2538. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division. February 26, 1996.

CANBY, Circuit Judge: Appellant, Reverend Dusty Pruitt, appeals from the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), of her first and fifth amendment challenges to Army regulations requiring her discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) because of her acknowledged homosexuality. We affirm in part and reverse in part. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are