Cases

ACCEPTED 12-15-00206-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 8/21/2015 11

ACCEPTED 12-15-00206-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 8/26/2015 8:29:44 AM CATHY LUSK

ACCEPTED 12-15-00206-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 8/20/2015 5:40:38 PM CATHY LUSK CL

MEMORANDUM** Defendant Phillip Wendell Reed, Jr. appeals multiple convictions for bank robbery on three grounds: (1) the district court clearly erred in accepting the prosecution’s justification for peremptorily striking the sole African-American venire member; (2) the district court abused its discretion in imposing full liability for restitution on Reed and requiring immediate payment; and (3) the distri

PER CURIAM: The issue presented by this appeal is whether the statute of limitations bars a suit where the district court clerk receives the complaint within the applicable limitations period but does not formally file it until two weeks later. Because the date of receipt by the clerk, rather than the date of formal filing, governs

184 B.R. 403 (1995) In re Rose HARPER-ELDER, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 94-01280. United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Columbia. July 27, 1995. Reed P. Sexter, Barry Levine, Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, Washington, DC, E. Macey Russell, Riemer & Braunstein, Boston, MA, for Creditor. Wendell W. Webster, Washington, DC, for debtor. DECISION

W.C. FALKENHEINER, Judge Pro Tem. This is a boundary action (LSA-CCP Art. 3691-3693: LSA-CC Arts. 781-796) in which the defendant appeals from the judgment of the Trial Court establishing the boundary between his property and that of plaintiffs in accordance with a survey of plaintiffs’ expert. (Exhibit P-8.) The judgment appealed from also ordered defendants to remove a cattle gap, a fence and a levee within sixty days and

778 So.2d 791 (2000) Joe L. REED et al. v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR ALABAMA STATE UNVERSITY et al. 1981227. Supreme Court of Alabama. May 26, 2000. Rehearing Denied August 18, 2000. *792 J. Cecil Gardner and Kimberly J. Calametti of Gardner, Middlebrooks, Fleming & Gibbons, Mobile; James A. Anderson of Beers, An

309 B.R. 468 (2004) In re Robert E. LEE & Shirley G. Lee, Debtors. Martin Marietta Materials Southwest, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Robert E. Lee & Shirley G. Lee, Defendants. Atofina Petrochemicals, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Robert E. Lee & Shirley G. Lee, Defendants. No. 02-54638-C. Nos. 02-5229-C, 02-5230-C. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division.

Benjamin Franklin Reed and Mary Catherine Reed, his wife, were the owners as tenants by the entireties of a parcel of land situated at the corner of Reese and Twenty-eighth Streets in Baltimore. In April, 1927, J. Henry Strohmeyer, a licensed real estate broker of Baltimore, was employed by Andrew J. Dietrich to purchase the lot mentioned from the Reeds, the negotiations between Strohmeyer and the Reeds covering about a year. At the first interview between Mr. Strohmeyer and Mr. Reed the latt

Chief Justice HECHT delivered the opinion of the Court. In actions for unintentional torts, the common law has long restricted recovery of purely economic damages unaccompanied by injury to the plaintiff or his property 1 — a doctrine we have referred to as the economic loss rule.

427 So.2d 1182 (1983) STATE of Louisiana v. Wendell MARTIN. No. 82-KA-0581. Supreme Court of Louisiana. February 23, 1983. Dissenting Opinion March 9, 1983. *1183 William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., John Craft, William R. Campbell, Jr., Jeffrey Bas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAMMIE FROST et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 17-603 (TJK) ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION In January 2016, Waiel El-Maadawy, Amr Mohamed, and Russell Frost—U.S. citizens serving as private defense contractors in Baghdad, I

ORDER AND REASONS MENTZ, District Judge. The court addresses here the plaintiffs’ request for discovery of the defendant’s experts. The defense experts include some who are expected to testify at trial and some who are not expected to testify at trial. The court finds that while discovery of experts expected to testify at trial is premature, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any discovery of experts not e

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 299 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Date: 2021-06-23 10:51:45 DIVISION III Foxit PhantomPDF Version: 9.7.5 No. CV-19-619 OPINION DELIVERED: MAY 13, 2020 LINDA MICKLES

PALMORE, Judge. Elaine and Wendell Cox, married in 1953, separated in September of 1957 and she sued for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Within a matter of days they reunited and the suit was dismissed. A month later she left him again and, on the same ground, brought this action for divorce, alimony and custody of their little girl, then 4½ months old. He answered, traversing the grounds, pleading cond

Justice WAINWRIGHT delivered the opinion of the Court. This case involves the duties and standard of care of an oil and gas operator under an exculpatory clause in a joint operating agreement (JOA). The language of the exculpatory clause in the JOA exempts the operator from liability for activities under the agreement unless it arises from gross negligence or willful misconduct. Based on that language in the

GRIFFIS, P.J., dissenting: ¶ 44. I respectfully dissent. ¶ 45. Judge Russell’s concurring opinion appears to help the chancellor with his decision on remand. If indeed the judgment is void, there is no reason for this Court to review any error in the “void” judgment. This Court should not issue advisory opinions. See Hughes v. Hosemann, 68 So.3d 1260, 1263 (¶ 7) (Miss.2011).

582 F.3d 1155 (2009) Frank J. NIELANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF REPUBLIC, KANSAS, Mark Nordell, Joshua Perez, Beth Reed, and Frank Spurney, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the Republic County Attorney, Defendants-Appellees. No. 08-3092. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. August 31, 2009.<

DICKINSON, Presiding Justice, for the Court: ¶ 1. For four years, Precision Welding, Inc., a subcontractor, provided construction services to Denbury Onshore, LLC, under an oral agreement. Denbury— claiming its contract with Precision was terminable at will — terminated the relationship in 2006. Precision filed suit, claiming Denbury had breached its obligation to keep Denbury on the job until the completion of