Cases

Opinion issued July 1, 2025 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00118-CV ——————————— SHAMETERIA LADAY-WYBLE, Appellant V. MOMENTUM GENERATION PARK

776 So.2d 501 (2000) Kenneth J. WYBLE v. TUNICA BILOXI GAMING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. No. 00 00534. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. November 2, 2000. *502 Peter F. Caviness, Dauzat, Falgoust, Caviness, Opelousas, LA, Counsel for Kenneth J. Wyble Plaintiff-Appellee. Sammie M. Henry, Egan, Johnson & Stiltner,

Appellant Gary Dean Wyble appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, and the court-assessed punishment of twenty-five years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. In six points, appellant argues that (1) there was no evidence or insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to charge on the lesser-included offense of "trespassing"; and (3) there was no evidence or insufficient evi

17 F.Supp.2d 641 (1998) Kay WYBLE, Surviving Widow of Glenn Wyble, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. and C. Frank Riddick, Defendants. No. 1:98-CV-1555. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. July 11, 1998. *642 John Keith Hyde, Provost & Umphrey, Beaumont, TX, for Plainti

LOTTINGER, Judge. This is a suit in workmen’s compensation, filed by Wrestler Johnson against Frederick J. Wyble and his insurer, T. H. Martin & Company. From judgment below in favor of defendants, dismissing petitioner’s suit, the petitioner has executed this appeal. The judgment below was rendered, read and signed on January 6, 1950. The petition and order for this appeal, and for service and citati

LOTTINGER, Judge. This is a workmen’s compensation proceeding in which the plaintiff seeks to recover for total permanent disability. Joined as defendants are his employer, Frederick J. Wyble, and latter’s insuror, T. H. Mastine, and Company. It is alleged that plaintiff was employed as a roustabout by defendant in connection with the latter’s drilling operations in the Hazelwood Oil Field in the Parish o

892 So.2d 103 (2004) James TOLBIRD, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Allison Belle WYBLE and Trinity Universal Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants. No. 38,969-CA. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. December 15, 2004. Rehearing Applications Denied January 20, 2005. *105 Nelson, Zentner, Sartor & Snellings

811 So.2d 1085 (2002) Rhoda JOHNSON, on Behalf of Her Minor Daughter, Renata JOHNSON v. Melvin DUMAS, Sr., et al. No. 01-CA-1153. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit. February 26, 2002. *1087 Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General, John H. Ayres, III, Assistant Attorney General, Baton Rouge, LA, for State of Louisiana, throu

EZELL, Judge. b This is an appeal from a workers’ compensation judgment. Patrick Johnson appeals the trial court judgment asserting that he is entitled to an increase in the award of penalties and attorney fees. He also complains that there was no award for reimbursement of medical travel expenses. Finally, Mr. Johnson complains that the trial court erred in ordering that any unpaid medication expenses should be paid to th

590 So.2d 1213 (1991) Clayton CURRY, Sr. and Gwendolyn Lee Stromas Curry, Individually, and on behalf of the Estate of Clayton Curry, Jr. v. Marvin JOHNSON, the Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Department, the Lafourche Parish Police Jury, the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, and Through its Department of Public Safety, the ABC Insurance Company, and the DEF Insurance Company. No. CA 90 1053.

NO. 07-09-0315-CV NO. 07-09-0354-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 BYRON MORGAN, Appellant V.

NO. 07-09-0315-CV NO. 07-09-0354-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B ---

NO. 07-09-0315-CV NO. 07-09-0354-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

*626McCALEB, Chief Justice. On October 2, 1969 Joseph Edward Johnson was charged with manslaughter. His trial, conducted November 12, 13 and 14, 1969, resulted in a hung jury, a mistrial was entered and he was released on his bond previously filed. Johnson was rearraigned on March 16, 1970 and pleaded not guilty. The case was fixed for trial on April

177 Mich. App. 606 (1989) 443 N.W.2d 180 HICKEY v. ZEZULKA HICKEY v. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Docket Nos. 90414, 90520, 101188. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided June 19, 1989. Church, Kritselis, Wyble & Robinson, P.C. (by J. Richard Robinson), for plaintiff. Zamplas, Paskin, Nagi, Baxter, Johnson &am;

82 Mich. App. 549 (1978) 267 N.W.2d 450 MEYERS v. ROBB KALCZYNSKI v. ROBB Docket Nos. 30601-04, 77-1715-18. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided April 17, 1978. Church, Wyble, Kritselis & Tesseris (by Thomas H. Hay), for plaintiffs. Denfield, Timmer & Taylor, for defendant Lester Johnson. <

PITMAN, J. | Jntervenor-Appellant Commerce and Industry Company (“Commerce”) appeals the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) and Claimants-Appellees Craig and Cheryl Forgey (“the Forgeys”). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS On January 28, 2010, the Forgeys filed a petition for personal inj

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION ONE STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED110837 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Jefferson County v. ) Cause No. 19J

EZELL, Judge. |]The Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Corporation (LWCC) sought a credit against its obligation for future compensation payments because an employer’s uninsured motorist (UM) carrier made payments on behalf of an employee involved in an automobile accident. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of LWCC finding that it was entitled to a future credit. Arch Insurance Company, as the UM carrier, filed th

GARRETT, J. The plaintiffs, James A. Thomas and Sharon Thomas, appeal from a jury verdict and judgment which they claim awarded insufficient damages for his injuries resulting from an accident at work and for her loss of consortium. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, amend in part, and, as amended, affirm the trial court judgment. FACTS Mr. Thomas was em