Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Wilson v. Hooks”
Hooks v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLCpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MOTION TO DISMISS SHARON L. GLEASON, District Judge. Ronald K. Hooks is Regional Director of the Nineteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or “NLRB”). Before the Court at Docket 1 is the Petition for Injunctive Relief Pursuant to § 10(j)1 of the National Labor Relations Act (the “NL
State v. Hookspublic domain
[Cite as State v. Hooks, 2022-Ohio-4132.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2021-12-148 Appellee, : OPINION 11/21/2022
Hooks v. Atokipublic domain
FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 29, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert
Turner v. Hookspublic domain
Per Curiam. *559{¶ 1} The Fourth District Court of Appeals granted a writ of habeas corpus to appellee, Denelle Turner, ordering his immediate discharge from the Ross Correctional Institution. We reverse. Background {¶ 2} On August 13, 2008, the state filed a complaint
Turner v. Hookspublic domain
[Cite as Turner v. Hooks, 2016-Ohio-3083.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY Denelle M. Turner : Petitioner, : Case No. 15CA3477 v. : Mark Hooks, Warden of : DECISION AND Ross Correctional Institution,
Bradley v. Hookspublic domain
[Cite as Bradley v. Hooks, 2017-Ohio-4105.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY LARRY WAYNE BRADLEY, : : Case No. 16CA3576 Petitioner-Appellant, : : vs. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT : ENTRY MARK HOOKS, WARDEN, :
Madeleine Connor v. Douglas Hookspublic domain
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-19-00198-CV Madeleine Connor, Appellant v. Douglas Hooks, Appellee FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-18-005130, THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MAUZY, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Mad
Hooks v. Smithpublic domain
781 S.W.2d 522 (1989) Vandalyn HOOKS, Appellant, v. G. Ted SMITH, Chairman; Patricia O'Conner; Thomas S. Maddox, Jr.; Charles "Andy" Anderson; and James "Buddy" Gaddis; The Board of Education of the Owensboro Independent School District, Appellees. No. 87-CA-1283-MR. Court of Appeals of Kentucky. December 1, 1989. William E. Rummage, Rummage, Kamuf, Yewell, Pace &am;
State v. Hookspublic domain
[Cite as State v. Hooks, 2016-Ohio-3138.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 15AP-522 v. : (C.P.C. No. 15EP-50) Walter L. Hooks, :
Casey Tyler v. Erik Hookspublic domain
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6701 CASEY RAFAEL TYLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:17-cv-00833-WO-JLW) Argued
People v. Hookspublic domain
139 Mich. App. 92 (1984) 360 N.W.2d 191 PEOPLE v. HOOKS Docket No. 73120. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided September 24, 1984. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief, Civil and Appeals, and Rosemary A. Gord
Hooks v. Workmanpublic domain
HOLMES, Circuit Judge. In this consolidated appeal, Victor Wayne Hooks, an Oklahoma state prisoner facing the death penalty, appeals two orders of the district court denying him habeas relief. He seeks relief on three alternative grounds: (1) he is mentally retarded1 and thus categorically ineligible for the death penalty; (2) aspects of his mental-retardation trial (“Atkins trial”) deni
Wilson v. Johnsonpublic domain
*970537 U. S. 1194; 538 U. S. 1000; 538 U. S. 1000; 537 U. S. 920; 537 U. S. 1070; 537 U. S. 984; 537 U. S. 1236; 538 U. S. 984; 538 U. S. 984; 538 U. S. 985; 538 U. S. 997; 538 U. S. 1002; 538 U. S. 10
Wilson v. Johnsonpublic domain
*970537 U. S. 1194; 538 U. S. 1000; 538 U. S. 1000; 537 U. S. 920; 537 U. S. 1070; 537 U. S. 984; 537 U. S. 1236; 538 U. S. 984; 538 U. S. 984; 538 U. S. 985; 538 U. S. 997; 538 U. S. 1002; 538 U. S. 10
Sylvester Hooks v. State of Floridapublic domain
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SYLVESTER HOOKS, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NOS. 1D16-0368, 1D16-0369 & 1D16-0370 STATE OF FLORIDA,
Charles Dewayne Hooks v. Statepublic domain
ACCEPTED 05-15-00186-CR FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 7/9/2015 10:20:31 AM
People v. Hookspublic domain
101 Mich. App. 673 (1980) 300 N.W.2d 677 PEOPLE v. HOOKS Docket No. 47390. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided November 20, 1980. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Don W. Atki
People v. Hookspublic domain
112 Mich. App. 477 (1982) 316 N.W.2d 245 PEOPLE v. HOOKS Docket No. 53685. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided January 19, 1982. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Frank J. Ber
Norris-Wilson v. Delta-T Group, Inc.public domain
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge. Now pending before the Court are cross-motions on class certification, which, naturally, Defendants oppose and Plaintiffs support. Defendants filed their motion first, on November 19, 2009, and Plaintiffs filed theirs on November 23, 2009. It’s ironic for Plaintiffs to argue that Defendants’ “maneuver”, as they call it, “grat
Hooks v. Alaska USA Federal Credit Unionpublic domain
BOLGER, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A borrower defaulted on a loan, leading to a non-judicial foreclosure of a deed of trust on his property. He filed suit against the property's new owner and the credit union that initiated the foreclosure, arguing the foreclosure and the transactions preceding it were fraudulent and invalid. The superior