Cases

BASCHAB, Judge. On September 17, 1986, the appellant was convicted of two counts of capital murder for the killings of John Davidson and Thomas Wayne Vason. The murders were made capital because he committed them during the course of a robbery. See § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. By a vote of 10-2, the jury recommended that he be sentenced to death. On December 15, 1986, the trial court accepted the jury’s recommenda

400 F.3d 1256 ATLAS TELEPHONE COMPANY; Beggs Telephone Company; Bixby Telephone Company; Canadian Valley Telephone Company; Carnegie Telephone Company; Central Oklahoma Telephone Company; Cherokee Telephone Company; Chickasaw Telephone Company; Chouteau TelephoneCompany; Cimarron Telephone Company; Cross Telephone Company; Dobson Telephone Company; Grand Telephone Company; Hinton Telephone Company; Kanokla Telephone Association; McLoud Telephon

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge. In these consolidated appeals, Plaintiffs-Appellants rural telephone companies (“RTCs”) collectively appeal the district court’s orders affirming final orders of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”). The OCC orders established interconnection obligations under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 between the RTCs and Defendant-Appellees commercial mobile radio service (“CMRS”) p

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBIN J. CAUTHRON, District Judge. Plaintiff Cheryl L. Hutchinson filed this suit on June 7, 2011, raising seven claims for relief. (Pl.’s Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After the dismissal stage, Plaintiff has three claims remaining against both Defendant Dennis Phillips and Defendant City of Oklahoma City (“City”): (1) Count IV, which alleges a violation of equal protect

FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, NO. CLERK IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TE

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 14-9003 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KABONI SAVAGE, a/k/a Joseph Amill, a/k/a Bonnie, a/k/a Yusef Billa, agent of Dirt, agent of Bighead,

309 F.Supp.2d 1299 (2004) ATLAS TELEPHONE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA, et al., Defendants. Nos. CIV-03-0347-F, CIV-03-0348-F, CIV-03-0349-F, CIV-03-0350-F. United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma. March 5, 2004. *1300 Ambre C. Gooch, David W. Lee, Kendall W. Parrish, Mary K. Kunc, Ronald

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH MAR 5 1999 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK FISHER Clerk

McKAY, Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. Defendant was charged in a four-count indictment with one count

Quad Graphics, Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 2021 NCBC 37. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION WAKE COUNTY 20 CVS 7449 QUAD GRAPHICS, INC., Petitioner, v. ORDER AND OPINION ON FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR JUDICIAL NORTH CAROLINA D

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge. Terry A. Garvin, et al., (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT & T) on their claims to recover termination allowances brought pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Facts Appellant

ACCEPTED 07-14-00405-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 2/18/2015 4:43:44 PM

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________________ No. 00-10461 __________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, versus ALBERT LOUIS LIPSCOMB, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. ______________________________________

174 F.3d 1087 160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2650, 137 Lab.Cas. P 10,390,23 Employee Benefits Cas. 1073, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 1703 Terry A. GARVIN; John McGrail; Ferdnand Adamson; EdithAitken; Marva Akins; Douglas R. Allen; Shirley Allen;Loren Alm; Sheila Altman; Cornelious Anderson; Peggy C.Anderson; Claudette B. Anterin; Esther Arnold; Kenneth G.Arsenault; Jerry M. Ashley; Lindy Ashley; Johnice M.

Filed 8/22/13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S073316 v. ) ) ROBERT MARK EDWARDS, ) ) Orange County Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT CARTER, Judge: A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted appellant, contrary to her pleas, of dishonorable failure to pay a just debt, lying, and presenting an altered promissory note, in violation of Article 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 933 [hereinafter UCMJ]. The adjudged sentence consisted of a dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowance

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: This is a consolidated challenge to two orders of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC,” the “Commission,” or the “agency”)1 promulgated to satisfy the twin Congressional mandates articulated in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”)2 of providing universal telecommunications service in the United States and injecting

472 F.3d 1281 CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, of the State of Georgia, Jerry Jackson, as Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Georgia, Russell W. Hinton, as State Auditor of the State of Georgia, Ray J. Crawford, as Director of the Georgia State Properties Commission, Defendants-Appellees. No. 05-16000. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh

448 F.Supp.2d 1330 (2005) CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. The STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF the State of GEORGIA; Bart L. Graham, Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Georgia; Russell W. Hinton, State Auditor of the State of Georgia; and Ray J. Crawford, Director of the Georgia State Properties Commission, Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:02-CV-2634-CAP. United States District Court, N.D. Geo

WIENER, Circuit Judge: Albert Lipscomb, a former member of the Dallas City Council, appeals his convictions for conspiracy and program bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666 (“§ 666”). Whether he raises a constitutional challenge to his convictions, and, if so, how we should rule on that challenge, are questions that have divided our panel three ways, as will become clear from our separate writings. Despite this tripartite