Cases

DYK, Circuit Judge. Curtis Scott appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his claim for service connection for hepatitis C. We affirm. BACKGROUND Scott served on active duty for training in the United States Marine Corps Reserve from January to July 1972. O

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Shawonder Scott, Appellant, v. Curtis McAlister, Acquana McAlister, Norma L. Cyrus, Tax Collector for Williamsburg County, the County of Williamsburg, an Unincorporated Subdivision of the State of South Carolina, Hartwell Pendergrass, Sr., and Hattie S. Pendergrass, Defendants, Of whom Norma L. Cyrus, Tax Collector for Williamsburg County, and the County of Williamsburg, an Unincorporated Subdivision of the State of South

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-18-00050-CR CURTIS DOYS RUST, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 354th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 31801 Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens

PAGE, Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Minnesota Statutes § 8.31, subd. 3a (2010), permits “any person injured by a violation of any of the laws referred to in subdivision 1” to bring a civil action to recover damages. The court holds that the “future conduct” clause in the 1998 Settlement Agreement between Philip Morris and the Minnesota Attorney General (State AG) expressly released and barred C

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 21-2846 __________ WILLIAM L. BURRELL, JR.; JOSHUA HUZZARD; DAMPSEY STUCKEY v. TOM STAFF, Individually; LOUIS DENAPLES, individually; DOMINICK DENAPLES; LACKAWANNA RECYCLING CENTER INC; COUNTY OF LACKAWANNA; LACKAWANNA

KELLY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I write separately because I disagree with the court’s conclusion that Donohue’s affidavit does not contradict the complaint. In so concluding, the court notes that the complaint does, not specify where the defamatory statements were published. Thus, the court explains, Donohue’s allegation that the statements were published in New York does not contradict the complaint, and

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 24, 2015 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CURTIS SCOTT HARPER Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 99747 Mary B. Leibowitz, Judge No. E2014-01077-CCA-R3-CD – Filed November 3, 2015 _____________________________ A Knox County jury found Curtis Scott Harper (

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CURTIS SCOTT HARPER Criminal Court for Knox County No. 99747 No. E2014-01077-CCA-R3-CD – Filed November 3, 2015 JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., concurring. I believe that the majority opinion provided an excellent discussion of the photographs and subsequent legal analysis of their

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 24, 2015 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CURTIS SCOTT HARPER Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 99747 Mary B. Leibowitz, Judge No. E2014-01077-CCA-R3-CD – Filed November 3, 2015 _____________________________ A Knox County jury found Curtis Scott Harper (

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-05

OPINION RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge. These appeals involve a consolidated stockholder derivative action brought on behalf of the nominal defendant, Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation (Columbia), against certain of its current and former directors and/or officers. The claims arise out of investigations into allegedly wide-spread and systematic health care fraud by Columbia’s hospitals, home health age

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4088 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/25/2024 Pg: 1 of 16 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-4088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CURTIS DAVIS, Defendant – Ap

GRIFFIS, P.J., for the Court: ¶ 1. Darnice Scott appeals the chancery court’s amendment of an order that divided her ex-husband Jerry Scott’s retirement benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act. She argues that the chancellor erred in classifying the error in the order as a clerical mistake under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). On appeal, Darnice argues that the chancellor erred: (1) in amending

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1104 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Curtis Lee Smith

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2023-KA-00627-COA BILLY SHANNELL NAILER, JR. A/K/A BILLY APPELLANT NAILER A/K/A BILLY S. NAILER, JR. A/K/A BILLY NAILER, JR. v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/2023 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. RANDI PERESICH MUELLER COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CURTIS LYNN FAUBER, No. 17-99001 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:95-cv-06601- GW RONALD DAVIS, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin, OPINION Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United

Appellate Case: 19-2197 Document: 010110678995 Date Filed: 05/03/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 3, 2022

Appellate Case: 19-2197 Document: 010110678978 Date Filed: 05/03/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 3, 2022

WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., C.J./P.J. Curtis Shore (“Shore”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 1 motion, following an evidentiary hearing, on the basis the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm the judgment of the motion court.

SULLIVAN, Chief Judge (concurring): I concur with the scholarly and excellent opinion of Senior Judge Everett concerning the constitutionality of RCM 1004, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984. However, I reserve judgment on the effect of Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 866, on this case since such a holding is not required to answer the specified issues decided today.