Cases

43 S.W.3d 703 (2001) Wendy Kalinec LILLEY, Appellant, v. William Rayford LILLEY, Appellee. No. 03-00-00284-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. April 12, 2001. *704 Peter R. Meeker, Davis & Wilkerson, P.C., Austin, for appellee. Cathy L. Bradford, Austin, for appellant. Before Chief Justice ABOUSSIE, Justices

20-1916-pr Cosey v. Lilley 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term, 2021 5 6 (Argued: October 27, 2021 Decided: March 9, 2023) 7 8 Docket No. 20-1916-pr 9 _____________________________________ 10 11 ARCHIE COSEY, 12 13 Petition

Bieluch, J. This appeal raises the sole issue of whether the original decree dissolving the marriage of the parties is modifiable with respect to the terms of the alimony award granted to the defendant wife. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding the decree to be nonmodifiable. The facts are not in dispute. The marriage of the parties was dissolved by order of the court on January 21,

11 SEXTON, Judge. Defendant, Larry Dale Lilley, was charged with three counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile, in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:81. A jury found Lilley guilty of one count of attempted indecent behavior with a juvenile, and the court sentenced him to serve three years at hard labor. From this conviction and sentence he now appeals, urging three assignments of error. We affirm. FACTS

936 F.Supp. 708 (1996) Michael LILLEY and Arthur Frederick, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Stanley CHARREN, Maurice E. Miller, Joel M. Canino, Gerald R. Alderson, Charles Christenson, Angus M. Duthie, Steven N. Hutchinson, Howard W. Pifer, III, Mervin E. Werth, Kenetech Corporation, J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and Merrill Lynch & Co., Smith Barney, Inc., and Morgan Stanley & Co., Individually a

[Cite as Large v. Lilley, 2018-Ohio-1017.] COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAM T. LARGE : JUDGES: : : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"). The action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the Commissioner's final determination. On July 24, 2012, plaintiff, t

Matter of Briggs v Lilley (2020 NY Slip Op 01691) Matter of Briggs v Lilley 2020 NY Slip Op 01691 Decided on March 12, 2020 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant

Matter of Haigler v Lilley (2019 NY Slip Op 02194) Matter of Haigler v Lilley 2019 NY Slip Op 02194 Decided on March 21, 2019 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuan

Judge BECTON dissenting. Believing that the trial judge committed “plain error” by failing to instruct the jury on the right of defendant to use force in self-defense without retreating because he was in his own home, I dissent. See State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 300 S.E. 2d 375 (1983). That the error prejudicially affected substantial rights of the defendant is buttressed by my belief that this is a clos

348 S.E.2d 788 (1986) STATE of North Carolina v. James Clifford LILLEY. No. 22A86. Supreme Court of North Carolina. October 7, 1986. *789 Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by William N. Farrell, Jr., Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., and G. Patrick Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for State. Epting & Hackney by Robert Epting, Chape

[Cite as State v. Lilley, 2013-Ohio-3616.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98905 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Rosen, J.: On review of an opinion by the Court of Appeals, Mark and Janis Evenson challenge the calculation of damages, primarily to trees, resulting from a fire on their rural property. Although we disagree with the analysis employed by the district court and by the Court of Appeals, we agree with their ultimate conclusions and affirm. The Evensons purc

Fenn, J. This is a ease reserved by the Superior Court for the advice of this court. The facts found, so far as material to be stated here, are as follows:— On June 20th, 1890, the defendants, husband and wife, married since 1877, were, and still are, the equal owners, as tenants in common, of a piece of land situated in Waterbury, in this State, with a business block, five stories in height, standing thereon. On

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On his appeal from convictions for attempted murder in the second degree of one victim and murder in the second degree of another, defendant argues, among other things, that there should be a reversal and a new trial because the court’s charge offended the rule in Sandstrom v Montana (442 US 510) even though the error was not preserved for review (see People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 472). We disagr

Memorandum Decision CHRISTIANSEN, Judge: T1 Keith and Sharon Lilley (Plaintiffs) appeal from the district court's order dismissing their breach of contract and negli-genee causes of action against Defendant Blake Ingram. We affirm. *472T 2 "When reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion [to dismiss], we recite the facts in a light most favorab

Opinion by Judge Rogers, Theodore K. Lilley was convicted on January 11, 1977, of failure to stop and disclose his identity at the scene of a motor vehicle accident in violation of Section 1027 of The Vehicle Code of 1959 (old Code), Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, as amended, formerly, 75 P.S. §1027, repealed by the Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162. In accordance with Section 616(a)(3) of the old Code h

978 A.2d 995 (2009) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Joshua LILLEY, Sr., Appellant. No. 1986 WDA 2008. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted May 4, 2009. Filed July 21, 2009. *996 Nicole D. Sloane, Public Defender, Erie, for appellant. Bradley H. Foulk, Assistant District Attorney, Erie, for C

MEMORANDUM, ORDER, and JUDGMENT WEINSTEIN, Chief Judge: Anna Lilley sues on behalf of her deceased husband John Lilley, a Vietnam veteran. (The Lilleys are sometimes individually and jointly referred to as “plaintiff.”). Defendants are seven chemical companies that manufactured the herbicide Agent Orange for use in Vietnam. They have moved to dismiss and for summary judgment. As in the cases of the oth

MEMORANDUM and ORDER WEINSTEIN, Chief Judge: Defendant chemical companies have appealed from the Magistrate’s Order that defendants produce Drs. Emil J. Bardana, Rolf Hartung and James S. Taylor for deposition by plaintiffs in the Lilley and Hogan cases, part of the complex “Agent Orange” multidistrict litigation. Lilley v. Dow Chemical Co., CV-80-2284 (E.D.N.Y.); H