Cases

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge | Appellant Thomas Rainey appeals after a Dallas County jury found him guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 480 months’ imprisonment. Appellant lists two points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppr

LEE, C.J., for the Court: FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 1. In November 1995, John Thomas Rainey Jr. pleaded guilty to aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. The DeSoto County Circuit Court sentenced Rainey to twenty years, with sixteen years suspended and four years to serve in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Rainey was sentenced as a habitual of

MEMORANDUM OPINION MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, District Judge. Plaintiffs Joanne Harris, Jessica Duff, Christy Berghoff, and Victoria Kidd brought this suit challenging Virginia’s refusal to allow same-sex marriages and its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed by sister states. Defendants are Janet M. Rainey, in her official capacity as the State Registrar of Vital Records, and Thomas E.

OPINION AND ORDER ARENDA L. WRIGHT ALLEN, United States District Judge. A spirited and controversial debate is underway regarding who may enjoy the right to marry in the United States of America. America has pursued a journey to make and keep our citizens free. This journey has never been easy, and at times has been painful and poignant. The ultimate exercise of our freedom is choice. Our Consti

OPINION OF THE COURT (October 6, 2011) Cabret, J. Leola Hermon hired Deniece M. Rainey, an attorney, to assist her with certain legal matters. When Hermon failed to pay for that assistance, Rainey sued Hermon in Superior Court to collect the fees for the legal services she rendered to Hermon. The Superior Court ruled in favor of Rainey, but reduced the amount owed to Rainey without any eviden

603 F.3d 189 (2010) Kyle RAINEY, Appellant v. Benjamin VARNER, Superintendent; The District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia; and The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania. No. 08-1714. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued January 26, 2010. Opinion Filed April 23, 2010. *192 George

47 So.3d 1199 (2010) Delfenia RAINEY, Appellant v. GRAND CASINOS, INC., Caesars Entertainment, Inc. and Harrah's Operating Company, Appellees. No. 2009-CA-01577-COA. Court of Appeals of Mississippi. November 23, 2010. *1200 Ralph Stewart Guernsey, Thomas Upton Reynolds, II, attorneys for appellant. Robert Lewis Moore, atto

OPINION MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge. We must decide whether a state-appointed guardian ad litem (“guardian”) acts under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Applying the several fact-sensitive tests recognized by this Court, we conclude that the Guardian’s function does not qualify as state action and therefore affirm the district court. BACKGROUND

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 961 (Fla.1981); James v. State, 845 So.2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). SAWAYA, C.J., SHARP, W., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

326 F.3d 1088 Lorraine KIRTLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Carol H. RAINEY, and the marital community; Roy Rainey, and the marital community; Thomas Adams, and the marital community; Jane Doe Adams, and the marital community; Genney Opinion Baker, and the marital community; Jason Baker, and the marital community; Diane Frost, a single woman, Defendants-Appellees. No. 01-35740. United States Cour

574 S.E.2d 25 (2002) STATE of North Carolina v. Mikel Olanda RAINEY. No. COA02-129. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. December 3, 2002. *26 Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Amy L. Yonowitz, for the State. Mary March Exum, Hendersonville, for the defendant-appellant. WYNN, Judge. Fo

35 So.3d 215 (2010) Vera M. RAINEY v. ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC., and Mike Case. No. 2009-C-572. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 16, 2010. Rehearing Denied May 7, 2010. *217 Beall & Thies, LLC, William Walter Thies, Russell W. Beall, and Leonard Cardenas, III, Baton Rouge, for Applicant. Flanagan Part

PER CURIAM. | tIn an August 15, 2008 per curiam, this court sitting en banc decreed that the “trial court judgment stands” because this court had no executable majority to support a judgment. Rainey v. Entergy Gulf *879States, Inc., 06-0816 (La.App. 1st Cir.8/15/08), 993 So.2d 735. The supreme court then granted Entergy Gulf States, Inc.’s w

Justice Thomas, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Scaua join, dissenting. The rising incidence of out-of-wedlock births and delinquent fathers has had dire social consequences, including, in one expert’s view: “lower newborn health and increased risk of early infant death; retarded cognitive and verbal development; lowered educational achievement; lowered levels of job attainment; increased behavioral pro

I,WILLIAMS, J. The defendant, Terrance Rainey, was charged by bill of information with aggravated battery, a violation of LSA R.S. 14:34. After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to serve four years at hard labor with credit for time served. The trial court denied defendant’s timely motion to reconsider sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and senten

Justice Thomas, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Scaua join, dissenting. The rising incidence of out-of-wedlock births and delinquent fathers has had dire social consequences, including, in one expert’s view: “lower newborn health and increased risk of early infant death; retarded cognitive and verbal development; lowered educational achievement; lowered levels of job attainment; increased behavioral pro

2025 IL App (1st) 231769 No. 1-23-1769 Filed September 24, 2025 Third Division IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTR

[Cite as State v. Rainey, 2023-Ohio-4666.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230055 TRIAL NO. B-2100811-B Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : O P I

Robert Rainey v. State of Maryland, No. 54, September Term, 2021. Opinion by Hotten, J. CRIMINAL LAW – JURY INSTRUCTION – DESTRUCTION OR CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE A destruction or concealment of evidence jury instruction, like any consciousness of guilt jury instruction, requires the State to provide “some evidence” to support a chain of four inferences (“Thompson inferences”) connecting the destruction or concealment of evidence to actual

652 S.E.2d 251 (2007) Alice Bins RAINEY, Michele R. Rotosky, and Madeline Davis Tucker, Petitioners v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and State Board of Education, Respondents. No. 143PA07. Supreme Court of North Carolina. November 9, 2007. Poyner & Spruill LLP, by Thomas R. West and Pamela A. Scott, Raleigh, for petitioner-appellee Madeline Dav