Cases

733 N.W.2d 765 (2007) In re Katelyn Nicole WALL and Jonathon David Chaplin, Minors. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Sarah Renae Chaplin, Respondent-Appellant, and Daniel Thomas Wall, Respondent. Docket No. 134205. COA No. 273224. Supreme Court of Michigan. July 9, 2007. On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May

606 F.3d 933 (2010) Quanartis TURNAGE, Appellant, v. Joan FABIAN, Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections, Appellee. No. 09-1668. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: February 9, 2010. Filed: June 7, 2010. *935 Jonathan P. Schmidt, argued, Daniel John Supalla, on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, fo

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Jeffrey Cole, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE A. Mr. Patrick has filed a motion to compel the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (“SAO”) to produce almost 300 pages of documents that it withheld from production on the grounds of the work product doctrine and the deliberative process privilege. [Dkt. # 102]. The facts are these. In early

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A13-1245 Court of Appeals Gildea, C.J. Dissenting, Page and Stras, JJ. State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Filed: February 11, 2015

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

EDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge. |tThe defendant, Corey Robinson, appeals his conviction for armed robbery, a violation of La. Rev.Stat. 14:64.3, arguing that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress the identification because the “show-up” identification procedure was suggestive. After review of the record in light of the applicable law and arguments of the parties, we affirm. Relevant Facts and

Brennan, Circuit Judge. *423 Since the Founders crafted the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, courts have grappled with the "play in the joints" between them. Walz v. Tax Comm. of City of N.Y. ,

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 25-1698, 25-1755 PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS; PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPA

ORDER OF COURT The various groups of plaintiffs have collectively filed three petitions for panel rehearing and two for rehearing en banc, raising various objections to the panel opinion. This order deals primarily with the petitions for panel rehearing. None of them has merit. End-Payor Class’s Petition The End-Payor Class, seeking only panel rehearing, argues that we must remand the case with

369 F.Supp.2d 860 (2004) P. BORDAGES-ACCOUNT B, L.P., Bordages Co. and Robert F. Ford, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. AIR PRODUCTS, L.P., Defendant. No. CIV.A.1:04-CV-128. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. August 23, 2004. *861 *862 Anthony G. Brocato, Sr. of Law Offices of Ant

143 Cal.App.2d 430 (1956) JOAN EVELYN DANIELS, Respondent, v. ORRIN POTTER DANIELS, Appellant. Civ. No. 21439. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Two. July 26, 1956. Boyle, Bissell & Atwill and Robert C. Mardian for Appellant. Michael J. Clemens for Respondent. ASHBURN, J. Appeal by defendant husband from that portion of

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 2 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 3 It would be an anomaly indeed if a court not having jurisdiction could acquire it by granting an extension of time on its own moti