Cases

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING The application for rehearing filed by The Dow Chemical Company is granted for the limited purpose of amending the assessment of appellate costs. Our opinion assessed all costs of appeal, which total $187,702.52, to The Dow Chemical Company. After further consideration, we find that allocation to be inequitable. William W. Goodell, Jr., presented five assignments of error of limited scope, The Dow Chemica

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. 8087, William E. Howard, J., entered June 18, 1999. Reversed by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Armstrong, C.J., and Quinn-Brintnall, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. 8087, William Howard, J. Pro Tern., entered March 7, 1997. Reversed by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Morgan and Seinfeld, JJ.

WINTER, Circuit Judge: Conrad Williams appeals from his conviction by a jury for assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (1988), use of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1988), and conspiracy to steal government funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1988). Williams claims that his rights under the confrontation clause

POLITZ, Circuit Judge: Wilbert Carl Williams, a Texas state prisoner serving an enhanced life sentence for burglary of a vehicle, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that he was indicted and convicted by unconstitutionally selected grand and petit juries. Relief in the form of monetary damages was sought. Before the d

DOWNING, J. Troy and Shannon Robichaux and Dow Chemical Company appeal a judgment in which the Robichauxs were not allowed to intervene in the captioned action. On July 9, 2004, however, on the motion of the appellees herein, we entered an order remanding this matter to the 18th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberville, Division “B” with instructions to grant the Petition of Intervention filed by appellants herein

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1191 Doc: 77 Filed: 07/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 20 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1191 WILBERT FINLEY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. KRAFT HEINZ INC., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA WILBERT KNIGHT, No. 79603 Appellant, "A. vs. FILE THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. NOV 0 9 2020 ORD

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2024-KA-0724 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL WILBERT D. JEFFERSON, JR. * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM

JERRE S. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: Appellant, Wilbert J. Sheets, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit which asserted causes of action against appellees under the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment. We affirm the dismissal. All parties appeal the $25,000 in sanctions the court awarded appellant. Appellant asserts he

Lau, J. ¶1 A superior court’s order closing an estate is a final judgment that precludes a litigant from bringing claims in a collateral action that could have been brought in the probate proceeding. We hold res judicata bars David L. Martin’s claims against the estate of William Wilbert because he attempts to relitigate claims and issues that were previously litigated or might have been litigated in prior actions. The order gran

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether the exclusivity provision contained in the Suits *1059in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.App. §§ 741-745, operates under the present circumstances to bar the plaintiff-appellant’s suit against a private maritime employer. The district court held that the plaintiffs sole remedy was against the United States and di

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-19-00036-CR COREY DEWAYNE WILBERT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 76th District Court Camp County, Texas Trial Court No. CF-17-01787 Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan June 23, 2017 Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

253 P.3d 108 (2011) David L. MARTIN, a married man, as his separate estate, Appellant, v. William E. WILBERT, Loretta D. Wilbert, and their marital estate; Estate of William E. Wilbert, deceased, and Loretta D. Wilbert, its personal representative, Respondent, ABC Corporations I through XXV, and XYZ Partnerships I through XXV, John and Jane Does I through L, and Western Bonding Co. a/k/a Western Surety Company, Defendants.

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan June 23, 2017 Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

SYLLABUS This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized. State v. Wilbert Hannah (A-74/75-19) (084052) January 4, 2021 -- Reargued March 31, 2021 -- Decided August 18, 2021 ALBIN, J., writing for the Court.

153 N.J. 218 (1998) 708 A.2d 401 ALAN J. CORNBLATT, P.A., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. AILEEN BAROW, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued November 3, 1997. Decided March 19, 1998. *223 Hilton L. Stein, argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Stein and Wilbert & Monteneg

553 F.3d 544 (2009) David A. WILBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 08-2169. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued December 10, 2008. Decided January 21, 2009. *545 David A. Wilbert, Elmhurst, IL, pro se. John A. Nolet, Department of J

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge: In this § 2253 habeas corpus appeal, Herring contends that he unknowingly and involuntarily pled guilty to a robbery charge because his appointed counsel was too poorly prepared to give him effective assistance in deciding how to plead. We agree and order that the writ be granted. This case began with a May 30, 1962, jailbreak at