Cases

RANDOLPH, Presiding Justice, for the Court: ¶ 1. Eric Moffett was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a jury. The jury determined that the murder of a five-year-old child was: (1) committed while Moffett was engaged in felonious abuse and/or battery of a child; and (2) especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. ¶2. Moffett’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal

11 GLENN B. GREMILLION, Judge. The defendants, Jesse and Evelyn Mof-fett, appeal the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, William and Bessie Sanders and Margaret Otwell (Sanders), and setting the boundary between their properties as determined by the Sanders and Otwell surveyor. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the matter is remanded for

826 A.2d 277 (2003) Daniel W. KRASNER, Gregory J. Sheffield, and Moise Katz, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees, v. James R. MOFFETT, Rene L. Latiolais, Terrell J. Brown, Thomas D. Clark, Jr., B.M. Rankin, Jr., Richard C. Adkerson, Robert M. Wohleber, Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur, Inc., and McMoRan Oil & Gas Co., Defendants Below, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants. No. 569,2002. Supreme Co

647 F.Supp.2d 517 (2009) Thomas L. MOFFETT, II, et al., Plaintiffs v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Civil No. PJM 05-1547. United States District Court, D. Maryland. July 6, 2009. *518 Donald W. Marcari, Frank D. Lawrence, III, Marcari Russotto and Spencer, Chesapeake, VA, Martin H. Freeman, Freeman and Freem

457 F.Supp.2d 571 (2006) Thomas L. MOFFETT, II, et al., Plaintiff's, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Civil No. PJM # 05-1547. United States District Court, D. Maryland. September 29, 2006. *572 Donald W. Marcari, Marcari Russotto and Spencer Chesapeake, VA, Frank D. Lawrence, III, Marcari Russotto and Spence

The intervening defendant employment security appeals division board of review’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 60 Conn. App. 746 (AC 19549), is denied. KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

128 F.Supp.2d 1162 (2001) Felipe MOFFETT, Plaintiff, v. William HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States, Defendant. No. 99 C 4834. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. January 24, 2001. *1163 Felipe Moffett, Dolton, IL, for Plaintiff. Ann L. Wallace, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chicago, IL, for

PER CURIAM. Mark Moffett appeals his judgment and sentence for dealing in stolen property. We affirm the judgment and sentence except for the $50 the lower court imposed pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (Crimes Compensation Trust Fund). The cost imposed pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes was increased in 1992 from $20 to $50. Ch. 92-107, § 13, at 905, Laws of Fla. The effective date of the amendment w

Appeal No. 8059 from Judgment dated September 2, 1993, Billy Joe Landrum, Ruling Judge, Jones County Circuit Court, Second Judicial District. Before FRAISER, C.J., and COLEMAN and SOUTHWICK, JJ. Affirmed. BRIDGES and THOMAS, P.JJ., and BARBER, DIAZ, KING, McMILLIN and PAYNE, JJ., concur.

671 N.E.2d 827 (1996) 284 Ill. App.3d 255 219 Ill.Dec. 660 Ronald and Bernice FURTAK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert MOFFETT, individually and Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 1-95-3151. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division. October 4, 1996.

947 F.2d 442 Terry Gilbert SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Charles MOFFETT, William Lutz, Robert J. Gorence, DickFelter, Milton Byron Walke, Michael Upshaw, Daryl Junes,William Kellogg, Bobby Etsitty, Kenneth P. Shirley, JoeCambridge, Brenda Harrison, Sampson Cowboy, Gerald Kelly,Reginald Deale, and Leonard Hilt, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-2171. United States Court of Appeals

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 31, 2002 MARSHALL MOFFETT v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 01-805-II Carol McCoy, Chancellor No. M2001-03011-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 5, 2002 Petitioner filed, pro se, a “Petition for N

Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 22-1075 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. MARK MOFFETT, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. William D. Young, U.S. District Judge] Be

Opinion PER CURIAM. The intervening defendant employment security appeals division board of review (board) appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (administrator).1 The board claims that the court improperly ruled that pursuant to General Statutes § 31-236 (a) (2) (B),2

TACHA, Circuit Judge. In his pro se complaint, plaintiff-appellant Terry Smith alleged various violations of his civil rights by the defendants in his arrest, indictment, prosecution, and conviction.1 Defendants are federal officials, tribal officials, or private individuals. Smith invoked the district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). The district court refused Smith’s

PHYLLIS M. KEATY, Judge. |, Lauren Lee Moffett (Lauren) and her attorney, Evelyn Oubre (Oubre), appeal a judgment in favor of Scott Brame Moffett (Scott) stemming from an evidentiary hearing on sanctions pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1420(E). The trial court found that Oubre failed to comply with a rule of discovery, which violated La.Code Civ.P. art. 1420(B), subjecting her to sanctions under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1420(D)

The plaintiff administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (administrator), appeals from the decision of the intervening defendant employment security appeals division board of review (board) determining that a claimant cannot be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits for wilful misconduct for stealing $25 or less of property or services. The issue presently before the court in these seven consolidated appeals1 is wheth

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner John A. Hedrick, and the briefs before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representative, or amend the Opinion and Award, except with minor modifications. *********** The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the follo

Assignment of Error The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence based on the absence of any physical evidence linking him to the crime, the failure of the State to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification, and the reliability of the State's witnesses. Applicable Law In accordance with Jackson v. Virginia ,