Cases

*318■ RANDOLPH, Presiding Justice, concurring in part and in result: ' ¶ 54. While I agree this matter should be reversed and remanded, my analysis would éohclude at a finding that the Williamses’ claims against Tucker are barred by res judicata, "for those claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been asserted in the federal action filed

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Linda Jenkins was reduced to part time employment as the bailiff in a county courthouse shortly after the election of Frederick Tucker as presiding circuit judge. Jenkins sued Tucker and the county sheriff, alleging that she had been unlawfully retaliated against for supporting the losing candidate for presiding judge. The district court

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION TERRY L. MYERS, CHIEF U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE On July 28, 2014, Anthony Neil Tucker (“Debtor”) filed a voluntary chapter 7 petition.1 On October 27, 2014, the United States of America on behalf of the Social Security Administration (“Plaintiff’ or, at times, “SSA”) timely filed a complaint initiating this adversary proceeding. Plaintiff seeks a determination

183 S.W.3d 501 (2005) John Willie TUCKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State. No. 2-03-471-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. December 29, 2005. *504 William A. Bratton III, Dallas, for appellant. Bruce Isaacks, Criminal District Attorney, Erin B. Healey, Debra Bender, Anthony *50

ACCEPTED 03-16-00526-CR 14509945 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

ACCEPTED 03-16-00526-CR 14509899 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION *Page 2 {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Terry Tucker ("appellant"), appeals the decision of the trial court. Having reviewed the arguments of the parties and the pertinent law, we hereby affirm the lower court. I {¶ 2} According to the case, appellant was indicted for his role in the aggrava

869 F.2d 592 U.S.v.Tucker (William Anthony), a/k/a 'Tony Tucker', a/k/a 'Tony' NO. 88-1642 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. JAN 25, 1989 1 Appeal From: E.D.Pa. 2

346 S.C. 483 (2001) 552 S.E.2d 712 Richard Anthony TUCKER, Petitioner, v. William CATOE, Director, South Carolina Dep't of Corrections, and Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents. No. 25332. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 7, 2001 Decided July 23, 2001. *48

221 F.3d 600 (4th Cir. 2000) RICHARD ANTHONY TUCKER, Petitioner-Appellant,v.WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.RICHARD ANTHONY TUCKER, Petitioner-Appellant,v.WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.<

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge KING wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Judge MICHAEL joined. OPINION KING, Circuit Judge: Richard Anthony Tucker, convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the state courts of South Carolina, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of h

311 S.W.3d 752 (2010) James KLOTZ and Mary Klotz, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. ST. ANTHONY'S MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Michael Shapiro, M.D., and Metro Heart Group, LLC, Respondents/Cross-Appellants. No. SC90107. Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc. March 23, 2010. As Modified May 25, 2010. *757 Louis M.

757 F.Supp. 3 (1991) Roberta BORENSTEIN v. Anthony TUCKER & R.L. Day, Inc. Civ. No. B-89-189(WWE). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. January 9, 1991. Stephen P. Horner, Gregory and Adams, Westport, Conn., for plaintiff. William J. Wenzel, James T. Shearin, Pullman Comley Bradley & Reeves, Bridgeport, Conn., for defendants.

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Hoag. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award, except with regard to removing sanctions against IAEA Benefit Trust, Ross Fuller, Trustee, against whom proceedings have been stayed and minor modifications throughout the opinion.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILLIAM TUCKER, § § Defendant Below, § No. 467, 2025 Appellant, § § Court Below–Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2308000401 (N)

THOMAS, J. John Doe, individually, and d/b/a Doe Trucking Company (collectively referred to as Doe), argues the circuit court erred in denying Doe’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) because (1) the sworn *393witness affidavit of Anthony Bernardo failed to satisfy the requirements of section 38-77-170(2) of the South Carolina

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued April 9, 2021 Decided September 3, 2021 No. 19-3042 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. LONNELL TUCKER, APPELLANT Consolidated with 19-3043, 19-3078 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Distric

COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

NO. 12-20-00269-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS § APPEAL FROM THE 217TH EX PARTE: § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT KEELAN DRE’ANTHONY LARUE, SR. § ANG

317 F.Supp.2d 766 (2004) Anthony TUCKER, Petitioner, v. Paul J. RENICO, Respondent. No. 99-10236-BC. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division. April 27, 2004. *767 Anthony Tucker, St. Louis, MI, Pro se. Janet Van Cleve, Lansing, MI, for Respondent. Kenneth R. Sasse, Federal Defender Office, Fli