Cases

KITCHENS, JUSTICE, . DISSENTING: ¶37. Because I find Douglas Walters’s assignments of error to be meritorious, I would reverse the judgment and remand this case to the Circuit Court of Rankin County. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. ¶ 38. First, the trial eourt erred in applying the harsher penalty provided in the earlier version of the grand larceny statute. Previously, the statute pro

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-19-00198-CV Madeleine Connor, Appellant v. Douglas Hooks, Appellee FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-18-005130, THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MAUZY, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Mad

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN E. OTT, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Ed Rudy brings this action asserting that Defendants Walter Coke, Inc., (‘Walter Coke”) and Walter Energy, Inc., (“Walter Energy”) terminated his employment to prevent him from using his health benefits for necessary surgery and in retaliation for using his leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”). T

TRIAL COURTS ORDER DISMISSING CASE IS REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH TODAY'S PRONOUNCEMENT GURICH, J. Facts & Procedural History I 1 On April 2, 2009, Richard Douglas was admitted to the Defendant's rehabilitative care center for extended care. Douglas remained at the facility for approximately 21 days and was discharged on April 28, 2009. He died a sh

713 S.E.2d 822 (2011) 289 Ga. 586 The STATE v. MUSSMAN. No. S10G1743. Supreme Court of Georgia. June 13, 2011. Reconsideration Denied July 21, 2011. *823 Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., William C. Akins, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant. Douglas N. Peters, Decatur, for appellee.

RUIZ, Associate Judge: This case, in which we affirm the judgment in part and remand in part, arises from offenses that were made somewhat extraordinary by the fact that its participants memorialized the developing events on film. On October 28, 1989, appellants Michael Akins, Robert Taper, Joel Carrero, and William Barnes, as well as former codefendant Bryan Davis1 and other juvenile and unindi

529 F.Supp.2d 187 (2008) William J. HILBERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 07CV11900-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 3, 2008. *188 *189 *190 Erika A. Olson, Michael C. Shepar

MEMORANDUM OPINION R. DAVID PROCTOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. Introduction This case is before the court on an appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama’s January 8, 2016 Order (I) Approving the Sale of the Acquired Assets Free and Clear of Claims, Liens, Interests and Encumbrances; (II) Approving the Assumption and Assignment of Certain

465 F.Supp.2d 409 (2006) Susan L. WALTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, and the Pike County District Attorney's Office, et al., Defendants. No. 3:03-CV-1690. United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. November 29, 2006. *411 Daniel J. O'Brien, John A. Orlando, Mary E. Dixon, White and Williams LLP, Phila

862 A.2d 929 (2004) WALTER E. LYNCH & CO., INC., a.k.a., Residential Client Construction, Inc., Group Design Associates, Inc., and Design Foundry, Inc., Appellants, v. Richard C. FUISZ and Lorraine Fuisz, Appellees. No. 04-CV-1272. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. December 2, 2004. *930 Stephen J. O'Brien, Washington, D

ROSE, Justice, with whom THOMAS, Chief Justice, joins, dissenting in part and concurring in part. “Realtors, just like doctors, lawyers, engineering consultants, and builders, hold themselves out as professionals; it is their job to know their profession. People rely on and trust them. Failure to comply with either the accepted standards in the field or the standards soc

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part and concurring in the judgment: In this case, Walter L. Nixon, Jr., a former United States District Judge, challenges the constitutionality of his conviction by the United States Senate on two articles of impeachment and his subsequent removal from the bench. Nixon contends that the Senate violated its express constitutional du

694 P.2d 501 (1985) 102 N.M. 245 SMITH MACHINERY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HESSTON, INC., and Bob Estes d/b/a Estes International Farm & Truck Supply, Defendants-Appellees. No. 14772. Supreme Court of New Mexico. January 21, 1985. *502 Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Jack P. Eastham

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge: Appellant Douglas D. Green (Green) challenges his convictions for mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering and the sentences imposed. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM Green’s convictions and sentences. The Facts “They say the gods themselves/ Are moved by gifts,

CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge. Appellant, Raymond Walter Monasterski, was found guilty by a jury of possessing goods stolen from an interstate shipment, knowing them to have been stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. Appellant raises four substantial issues in this appeal, including whether the goods in question had lost their status as stolen goods, thus barring Appellant’s conv

AKIN, Justice, concurring. Although I agree that the judgment should be reversed, I agree also with Justice Stewart that the goodwill of the husband’s law partnership should be considered in arriving at the husband’s interest in that partnership. Hence, I have joined in that opinion and concur in the result reached by the majority. Apart from these grounds for reversal of the judgment, I w

DUNCAN, P. J. In this criminal case, defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting him of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010, and reckless driving, ORS 811.140. He assigns error to the court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the results of an Intoxilyzer test (breath test), arguing that the evidence is inadmissible because it was obtained in violation of his right, under Artic

OPINION & ORDER DENISE COTE, District Judge: Plaintiffs in this class action bring claims for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; violation of California’s Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code §§ 16720 et seq.; violation of state antitrust and restraint of trade laws and consumer protection statutes; and unjust enrichment. The def

This is an appeal from an order of the County Court at Law of Grayson County dismissing the first amended original Plea of Intervention filed in that court by appellant as Intervenor in a suit therein pending, in which appellee was plaintiff and W. H. Hood was defendant. Suit was for a debt evidenced by a promissory note dated February 14, 1947, executed by Hood, and to foreclose a lien evidenced by a chattel mortgage of even date given by him to secure such note, covering certain pers

WOLF, J., dissenting. The majority reverses the judgment of the trial court vacating the foreclosure sale on the basis that appellee lacked standing. Appellee presented evidence, which the trial court accepted, that demonstrated an inequity in the sales procedure which placed him at a material disadvantage as compared to the winning bidder. This inequity did not allow him to compete fairly for the property. Un