Cases

OPINION ON REMAND Sharon McCally, Justice Appellant Christopher Norman sued ap-pellees Christopher and Lisa Henkel after Norman slipped on a patch of ice and fell on the Henkels’ property. Norman appeals from the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the Henkels. Initially, this court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment, holding that Lisa’s

VOGEL, P.J. Hill Concrete appeals from the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner’s award of healing period benefits to Jeffrey Dixson from March 31, 2010, until May 4, 2012, in its review-reopening decision. Hill Concrete asserts the commissioner erred in concluding Iowa Code section 85.34(1) (2011) governs the time period in which healing period benefits can be awarded in a revie

JEFFREY V. BROWN, Justice, dissenting. Because Lisa Henkel gave Christopher Norman an adequate warning as a matter of law, I respectfully dissent. I do not believe the cases Norman cites to support his argument control in this case. See, e.g., TXI Operations, L.P. v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 763, 765 (Tex.2009); State v. McBride, 601 S.W.2d 552, 557 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref

REISNER, P.J.A.D. *6Defendant Gerald Hill-White appeals from his convictions for ten counts of second-degree aggravated arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(a)(1) ; one count of third-degree arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b)(1) ; and one count of second-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2.2 He

MEMORANDUM Alan C. Stout, United States Bankruptcy Judge This adversary proceeding comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary *333Judgment1 (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff CMCO Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Home Lending Source (“HLS”)- The Debtor, Aaron K. Hill (“Hill”), opposes the motion. The Court has considered the Mo

KITE, Justice. [T1] After a jury found Christopher Ray Counts guilty of aggravated burglary and kidnapping and found him to be a habitual criminal, the district court sentenced him to two concurrent life sentences. 1 Mr. Counts appealed and this Court affirmed the convietion. Counts v. State, 2012 WY 70, 277 P.3d 94 (Wy

Former decision, 134 S.Ct. 1766.Petition for rehearing denied.

SUE WALKER, JUSTICE, dissenting I. Introduction I respectfully dissent. Appellee Perry Fuchs’s defamation suit against Appellant Christopher Hoskins is based solely on statements made by Hoskins in an Equal Opportunity Services (EOS) complaint that Hoskins filed with the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA).1 Because Hoskins’s statements in his EOS complaint a

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-2976 CHARLES W. CHRISTOPHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

RILEY, Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE [1] Appellants-Plaintiffs, John A. Hill (Hill) and Susan Hill, appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of Steven N. Rhinehart, M.D. (Dr. Rhinehart) and Fort Wayne Medical Oncology and Hematology, Inc.; John F. Csicsko, M.D. (Dr. Csicsko) and David P. Lloyd, M.D. (Dr. Lloyd), as individuals, and Cardiovascular Associates of Northeastern Indiana, LLC, a prof

HILL, Justice. [T1] In 2011, Richard Reynolds filed a complaint against Christopher Bonar claiming personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. That complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with discovery orders. In 2012, Reynolds re-filed his complaint against Bonar. Reynolds' second complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with discovery,

DISSENTING OPINION BY PANELLA, J.: Because I find the majority’s conclusion that the post-polygraph interview consti*1098tuted a “new interrogation,” which exceeded the scope of the original Miranda warnings, to be in error, I am compelled to dissent. Rather than reverse, I would affirm the decision of the PCRA court, which found Hill’s coun

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-88,932-01 IN RE CHRISTOPHER MARCHEL HILL, Relator ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAUSE NO. CR-39347-A IN THE 142nd DISTRICT COURT FROM MIDLAND COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a

OPINION SCHELLHAS, Judge. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his mistrial motion and seeks a new trial on charges of first-degree burglary. He also makes pro se arguments, including that the district court erred by entering convictions and imposing sentences on multiple counts of burglary arising from a single course

OPINION ON REHEARING APPELLANTS PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Chuck W. Adams Attorneys for ArvinMeritor, Inc., et al. Pendleton, Indiana Brian L. McDermott Christopher C. Murray Charles E. Howard Ebony A. Reid Morgantown, Indiana Ogletree Deakins Nash

VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL, opinion of the Court: ¶1 Rodney Christopher Jones appeals his convictions and sentences arising from his possession of hashish, a form of cannabis resin, A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(4)(a), -3408(A)(1), arguing that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ("AMMA") immunizes his conduct. AMMA defines marijuana as including "all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis wheth

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1406-PL-00465 PER CURIAM. While Chuck Adams and Charles Howard were inmates at the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) Correctional Industrial Facility (“CIF”), they worked at a privately-owned brake shop operated by Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems, LLC on the premises of CIF. Ind

PER CURIAM: Tywan Hill was found guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hill appeals his conviction, contending that the jury instruction for constructive possession should have included the term “knowingly,” and the district court’s denial of his request to modify the ins

GRIMES, J. *68SUMMARY This is a child custody proceeding arising under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA, Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq. ).1 The proceeding raises questions of jurisdiction as between California and Belarus. Under the UCCJEA, a California cour