Cases

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 12, 2001 Session CATHERINE DEAN JACKSON v. BRUCE LANE JACKSON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 95-DR-1170 Samuel H. Payne, Judge FILED SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 No. E2001-00287-COA-R3-CV Catherine Dean Jackson (“Pl

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Jesse Jackson Jr. of West Chester, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0086184, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2010. On December 15, 2014, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Jackson with 31 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and one violation of the Rules for the Government of the Bar. {¶ 2} Much

GARRETT, J. |,The defendant, Johnny Lee Jackson, pled guilty to attempted first degree robbery and was sentenced to 15 years at hard labor without benefit' of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. He also pled guilty to second degree robbery and was sentenced to 20 years at hard labor. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Jackson appealed, claiming that his sentences are excessive. We affirm his co

*601OPINION By the Court, Pickering, J.: A single act can violate more than one criminal statute. When it does, the question arises whether the defendant can, in a single trial, be prosecuted and punished cumulatively for that act. These appeals present specific applications of that question: When the elements of both crimes are met

669 S.E.2d 514 (2008) JACKSON v. The STATE. No. A08A1222. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 14, 2008. *515 Catherine Verdery Ryan, for Appellant. Daniel J. Craig, Dist. Atty., William Leslie Bowcutt, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee. RUFFIN, Presiding Judge. A Richmond County grand jury indicted Malcolm Ja

Per Curiam,-. This is an uncontested attorney disciplinary proceeding involving Mary Catherine Jackson, an Olathe attorney licensed to- practice law in Kansas. The formal complaint in this case consisted of three counts alleging that respondent had violated MRPC 1.1 (1992 Kan. Ct. R; Annot. 244) (failed to provide competent representation), 1.3 (1992 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 248) (failed to act with reas

Upon consideration of the application filed by Plaintiff on the 1st day of December 2008 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County: "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of January 2009."

643 F.Supp.2d 602 (2009) Romayne O. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. Thomas CARROLL and Stanley Taylor, Defendants. Civ. No. 03-1031-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. August 5, 2009. *605 Raymond N. Scott, Jr., Esquire of Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff. Catherine Damavandi, Deputy Attorney G

Per Curiam: The respondent, Mary Catherine Jackson, is an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas. The Disciplinary Administrator alleged in Count I that respondent engaged in professional misconduct by having failed to provide competent representation to a client, MRPC 1.1 (1993 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 258), act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client, MRPC 1.3 (199

PER CURIAM: * Terrele V. Jackson, federal prisoner #04484-095, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the recent amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines provision. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief o

Per Curiam,: Mary Catherine Jackson, respondent, contests the findings and recommendations of a disciplinary hearing panel that she be suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) (1990 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 188); Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.3 (1990 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 219), 1.4(a) and (b) (1990 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 220), and 8.4(c) and (g) (1990 Kan. Ct. R. Ann

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CALVIN O’NEIL JACKSON,  Petitioner-Appellant, No. 09-17239 v. D.C. No. STATE OF NEVADA; BRIAN  3:03-cv-00257- SANDOVAL; ROBERT LEGRAND, RLH-RAM Warden, OPINION Respondents-Appellees.  Appeal from the

MEMORANDUM DECISION BRICCETTI, District Judge: Plaintiffs Anthony and Eva Jackson bring claims pursuant to Section 1983 and New York Public Health Law § 2504, alleging defendants Peekskill City School District (the “District”); Board of Education for the" Peekskill City School District (the “Board”); Board members Douglas Glickert, Colin Smith, Lisa Aspinall-Kellawon, Jillian Clausen, Maria Per

252 Kan. 219 (1992) 843 P.2d 257 IN THE MATTER OF MARY CATHERINE JACKSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE No. 67,549 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed December 11, 1992. Stanton A. Hazlett, deputy disciplinary administrator, argued the cause and Bruce E. Miller, disciplinary administrator, was with him on the formal c

On Motions for Rehearing Brian Quinn, Chief Justice Pending before the court are three motions for rehearing. After considering each, we withdraw our February 13, 2015 opinion and judgment, and substitute the following in its place. To the extent those motions seek relief not reflected in the following opinion, they are denied. Memorandum Opinion We have befor

MEMORANDUM JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge. Before the court for disposition is the defendants’ motion to dismiss portions of plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. Background Plaintiff served as the head varsity football coach for the Defendant Dall

262 P.3d 874 (2011) Richard JACKSON; Mary Jackson; Thomas Fehringer; Deborah Hradecky; Robert Hradecky; Dean Lousberg; and Lousberg Partnership, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Petitioners. v. UNOCAL CORPORATION, Union Oil Company of California, and Unocal Pipeline Company, Respondents. No. 09SC668. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. October 31, 2011.

ORDER GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 911); Plaintiffs Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 927); and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. No. 942). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. FACTS 1 Plaintif

PER CURIAM: This case presents an issue of first impression: whether incarceration for a parole violation that was later held unconstitutional by a state court tolls the defendant’s period of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3624. Defendanb-Ap- *302 pellant Benjamin Duane Jackson (“Jackson”) app

WETTICK JR., A.J, The issue addressed in this opinion is whether a court should strike a complaint as a sanction for a violation of Rule 1023.1 where the motion for sanctions is based on grounds that would be a basis for dismissal of the complaint under the Rules of Civil Procedure governing preliminary objections, judgments on the pleadings, or summary judgments. In Hutchinson v. Jackson