Cases

WILLIAMS, J. hThe defendant, Frederick Preston, Jr., was charged by bill of information with sexual battery, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:43.1. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty of the responsive verdict of attempted sexual battery. He was adjudicated a third-felony habitual offender and was sentenced to serve seven years in prison at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. For the

942 A.2d 718 (2008) 2008 ME 34 Kelly A. PRESTON v. William TRACY. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Submitted On Briefs: January 24, 2008. Decided: February 28, 2008. John D. Bunker, Esq., Paine, Lynch & Harris, P.A., Bangor, ME, for Kelly A. Preston. Donald F. Brown, Esq., Law Offices of Donald F. Brown, Esq., Brewer, ME, for Willi

Reversed and Remanded and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed May 29, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00301-CV VICTORIA V. OCHSNER, Appellant V. PRESTON A. OCHSNER, Appellee On Appeal from the 247th District Court Harris County, Texas

OPINION OF THE COURT Stein, J. On this appeal, we hold that applying Florida law on restrictive covenants related to the non-solicitation of customers by a former employee would violate the public policy of this state. Therefore, the choice-of-law provision in the parties’ employment agreement purporting to app

35 P.3d 433 (2001) James M. PRESTON, D.D.S., Petitioner, v. Renee DUPONT, Respondent. No. 00SC492. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. November 13, 2001. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing December 3, 2001. *434 Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Dale Harris, Andrew M. Low, Joel N. Varnell & Associates, J. Grego

TUNNELL, J, William G. Brown appealed the refusal of the Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals to reduce the assessed value of his residential property in the amount of $290,870 for the 2013 tax year. After conducting a trial de novo on March 8,2013 and in consideration of the competent and credible *218evidence presented therein, the court grants the appeal of Will

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-14-00467-CR WILLIAM PRESTON HOPPER APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------- FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

128 S.W.3d 430 (2003) Richard L. PRESTON and Gloria Preston v. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES; The University Hospital of Arkansas; Johannes Gruenwald, M.D.; William C. Grammar, M.D.; Kenneth G. Gati, M.D.; Laurie Hughes, M.D.; Anthony Roman, M.D.; and Robert S. Sedaros, M.D. No. 03-120. Supreme Court of Arkansas. November 6, 2003.

CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio denying the petition of the appellant, Preston Glenn for a writ of habeas corpus. Glenn was indicted by the January term of the Franklin County, Ohio Grand Jury on count one of

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25b0002p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ IN RE: JOHN PRESTON THOMPSON, │ Debtor. │ ___________________________________________ │ TEENA COL

Leon Cannizzaro, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Donna Andrieu, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Scott G. Vincent, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PARISH OF ORLEANS, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/STATE OF LOUISIANA Christopher A. Aberle, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P. O. Box 8583, Mandeville, LA 70470-8583, James Preston, # 70678, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, Oak - 1, Angola, LA 70712, DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/IN PROPER PERSON

Leon Cannizzaro, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Donna Andrieu, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Scott G. Vincent, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PARISH OF ORLEANS, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/STATE OF LOUISIANA Christopher A. Aberle, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P. O. Box 8583, Mandeville, LA 70470-8583, James Preston, # 70678, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, Oak - 1, Angola, LA 70712, DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/IN PROPER PERSON

867 F.Supp. 866 (1994) NASH FINCH CO. v. J. Scott PRESTON, individually; and the law firm of Rice, Preston, Brown. No. 4-94-CV-678. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division. November 17, 1994. *867 Steven William Meyer, Robert J. McGillivray, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff.

26 S.W.3d 145 (2000) UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY and State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Clara J. PRESTON, Administratrix of the Estate of Mikeal D. Preston, Appellee. No. 98-SC-0558-DG. Supreme Court of Kentucky. June 15, 2000. Rehearing Denied September 28, 2000. *146 Donal

160 Mich. App. 656 (1987) 408 N.W.2d 415 PEOPLE v. PRESTON WILLIAMS Docket No. 91741. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided April 10, 1987. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, L. Brooks Patterson, Prosecuting Attorney, Robert C. Williams, Chief, Appellate Division, and Richard H.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCELLAS HOFFMAN, No. 20-15396 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 1:16-cv-01617- LJO-SAB PRESTON, Defendant-Appellee, OPINION and D. COYLE; MATEVOISAIN, Warden; L. T.

JON P. McCALLA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx") on November 14, 2018. (ECF No. 37.) In this lawsuit, Preston asserts that FedEx terminated his employment because he is white, *1176because he is male, and in retaliation for reportin

Preston v APCH, Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 06236) Preston v APCH, Inc. 2019 NY Slip Op 06236 Decided on August 22, 2019 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judic

618 F.Supp.2d 400 (2009) Cheryl A. HARRIS, Co-Administratrix of the Estate of Ryan D. Maseth, deceased, and Douglas Maseth, Co-Administrator of the Estate of Ryan D. Maseth, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-563. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. March 31, 2009.

RENDELL, Circuit Judge: Damien Preston seeks habeas relief based on an alleged violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. We agree that the use of a witness's prior statements against Preston violated the Confrontation Clause because the witness, Leonard Presley, refused to answer any substantive questions on cross-examination. However, Pre