Cases

753 F.Supp.2d 1113 (2010) Jennifer HALL and Jose Rocha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Phyllis THOMAS and Gloria Fisher, Defendants. Civil Action No. CV-07-S-484-NW. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northwestern Division. November 29, 2010. *1118 Howard W. Foster, Matthew A.

HALL, P.J. *900 {¶ 1} Lorenzo R. Thomas appeals from his conviction and sentence following a no-contest plea to one count of heroin possession, a fifth-degree felony. {¶ 2} In his sole assignment of error, Thomas challenges the trial court's denial of a suppression motio

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 38 EM 2022 THOMAS MCGINLEY, SUPERINTENDENT, : : Respondents : : : v. :

PER CURIAM: Robert Hall, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and currently serving a 360-month total sentence for crack cocaine offenses, appeals from the district court’s sua sponte denial of a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and its subsequent denial of his motion to reconsider that order. Hall previously moved for a sentence reduction under Amen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT GERALD HALL, PRO SE PRISONER, : No. 15 EM 2024 : Petitioner : : : v. : :

Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. *704 This Court has held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution forbid the execution of persons with intellectual disability. Atkins v. Virginia,

LANSING, Judge. In these consolidated appeals, Kent Hall challenges the district court’s decisions denying his requests for the appointment of counsel and granting summary dismissal of two petitions for post-conviction relief. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Hall’s post-conviction actions stem from felony convic

HORTON, Justice. This is a permissive appeal arising from two interlocutory orders entered by the district court in Erik Virgil Hall’s case seeking post-conviction relief from his death sentence for the murder of Cheryl Hanlon, in which Hall alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Hal

*865OPINION Opinion By Justice BRIDGES. Appellants Michael H. Hall (“Hall”) and Emajean Haggard Hall (the “Trustee”) appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees James R. Douglas, Jr., Barbara Douglas, Douglas Properties, Inc., Douglas/Hall, Ltd., Douglas Properties/Development, Inc. (collectivel

7 A.3d 536 (2010) 416 Md. 533 Betty A. APPIAH, et al. v. Bruce Edward HALL, et al. No. 33, Sept. Term, 2009. Court of Appeals of Maryland. October 27, 2010. *539 M. Albert Figinski and Jeffrey J. Utermohle (The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C., Baltimore; David E. Haynes, The Cochran Firm, Washington,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Stanley A. Bastían, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 25. The motion was heard without oral argument. Defendants assert Plaintiffs’ claims against them should be dismissed on two grounds. First, Defendants argue th

Melton, Justice, dissenting. “The law is well settled that mandamus relief is available only if the petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief sought and that there is no other adequate legal remedy.” Hall v. Madison, 263 Ga. 73, 74 (428 SE2d 345) (1993). Thus, where the adequate legal remedy of contempt is available to coerce compliance with a prior court order, mandamus is unavailable. See

148 P.3d 939 (2006) 2006 UT 70 David J. ALLEN, an individual, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. Thomas K. HALL, an individual; and Homecomings Financial Network, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Chad R. Moore, an individual; and Melanie S. Moore, an individual, Intervenors. No. 20050338. Supreme Court of Utah. November 17, 2006.</

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1677 Doc: 33 Filed: 08/04/2026 Pg: 1 of 19 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1677 DANIEL P. MOOK, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. G. ANDREW HALL, Defendant – Appellant, and

664 F.3d 456 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Clyde M. HALL, Respondent-Appellee. No. 11-7102. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: October 28, 2011. Decided: January 9, 2012. *458 ARGUED: Ian James Samuel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appe

962 A.2d 1046 (2008) 183 Md. App. 606 Betty A. APPIAH, et al. v. Bruce Edward HALL, et al. No. 2730 Sept.Term, 2007. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. December 31, 2008. *1049 M. Albert Figinski and Jeffrey J. Utermohle (Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C., on the brief), Baltimore, MD and David E. H

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2023 ME 31 Docket: Was-22-284 Argued: April 6, 2023 Decided: May 23, 2023 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ. STATE OF MAINE v. THOMAS G. BONFANTI CONNORS, J. [¶1] Thomas G. Bonfanti appeals from a judgment

Arthur Isaiah Radcliff appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court in favor of Hall Housing Investments, Inc. ("Hall"), on September 15, 2009. We affirm. *Page 1259 Facts and Procedural History On July 1, 2009, Hall filed a complaint alleging unlawful detainer against Radcliff in the Jefferson District Court ("the district court"). In that complaint, Hall alleged that Radcliff had failed to pay

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 854 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 855 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT

GLEICHER, J. The individual parties to this appeal are present and former shareholders in a law firm, defendant Stark Reagan, EC. Plaintiffs Patrick C. Hall and Ava Ortner filed a complaint against Stark Reagan and the individual defendants, asserting that age discrimination motivated defendants’ decision to terminate Hall’s and Ortner’s shareholder status. The circuit court granted defendants summary disposition pursuant to MCR