Cases

Opinion issued July 8, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00832-CV ——————————— WILLIAM M. DUNN, Appellant V. JESUS LARA HERNANDEZ, ENRIQUE CABALLERO III, AND

PER CURIAM. Defendants-appellants William C. Dunn and Delta Consultants, Inc. appeal from the March 24, 1998 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, Chief Judge). In the order denying their application for an award of costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: William M. Dunn v. Jesus Lara Hernandez, Enrique Caballero III and Yessenia C. Caballero Appellate case number: 01-19-00832-CV Trial court case number: 1136391 Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County Appellees, Jesus Lara Hernandez

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON NOTICE Appellate case name: William M. Dunn v. Jesus Lara Hernandez, Enrique III and Yessenia C. Caballero Appellate case number: 01-19-00832-CV Trial court case number: 1136391 Trial court: County Civil Court at Law Number 2 of Harris County Appellant, William M. Dunn, ha

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: For nearly twenty-five years David W. Noble, Jr. has pressed his claims against the now-former leadership of the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC or Union). A decade ago one of our colleagues urged an end to "this 14-year litigation odyssey." Noble v. Sombrotto ( Sombrotto II ),

WINTER, Circuit Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal from the appointment of a temporary receiver. The principal legal issue is whether the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has power to regulate off-exchange options involving foreign currencies. Based on a prior decision of this court binding on this panel, we hold that it does and affirm.

PHASE 1 FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL OPINION AND ORDER Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION The individual plaintiffs in Phase 1 of this lawsuit are 17 prisoners with disabilities in the custody of the defendants, the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC or the Department) and Commissioner Jefferson Dunn. The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP), Alabama’

PHASE I OPINION AND ORDER ON NEED FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In the course of preliminarily approving the settlement of the Phase 1 claims in this case, see Phase 1 Prelim. Approval Order (doc. no. 532), the court ordered the parties to address “whether the court should appoint a guardian ad litem [GAL] to represent at the fairness hearing the inte

PHASE 2A ADAP SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The plaintiffs in this putative class-action lawsuit are dozens of state prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP). The defendants are officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC): the Commissioner and the Associate Commissioner of Health Services.1 They are sue

PHASE 2A INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The plaintiffs in this putative class-action lawsuit are dozens of state prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP). The defendants are officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC): the Commissioner and the Associate Commissioner of Health Services.1

OPINION AND ORDER Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. Introduction The issue currently before the court in this prison-conditions case is whether the plaintiffs are entitled, under either Federal Rule of Evidence 501 (specifically as interpreted in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996)) or the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Menta

OPINION AND ORDER Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ' The plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit are more than 40 state prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. The prisoners intend to represent a putative class of all prisoners in the state sys*1332tem. If a class is certified, the litigation could affect over 25

OPINION BY Judge SIMPSON. In this zoning appeal, we examine whether a zoning hearing board can grant lot width and density variances without any proof of hardship. More specifically, Theodore M. Dunn and Lori N. Dunn (Objectors) ask whether the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court) erred in affirming a decision of the Middletown Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) that g

TANGEMAN, J. *155 Sean F. Dunn appeals an order denying a petition to recall his sentence for felony petty theft with a prior and for resentencing to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and School Act (the Act). (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.18, 666.)

Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *1342On June 27, 2017, the court issued a liability opinion in which it found that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC)'s provision of mental-health care to prisoners violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That opinion noted "substantial evidence ... that ADOC is not co

Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *1269In June 2017, this court found that the Alabama prison system's "persistent and severe shortages of mental-health staff and correctional staff" are a significant factor causing the State to provide constitutionally inadequate mental-health care to prisoners. See Braggs v. Dunn

Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In this long-standing lawsuit, the court previously found that the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) has failed to provide adequate mental-health care to inmates in its custody in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Braggs v. Dunn ,

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

McCullough, Judge. *44Lacy Dunn (“petitioner”) appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for termination of his sex offender registration. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal. I. Background Petitioner was convicted of attempted second-degree sex offense in Montgomery County on 3 November 1994 and initially regis