Cases

L.T. No.: 2011-DR-008790-XX-FD Granted. Dismissed.

CRAIN, J. [«¡This is an appeal of a judgment sustaining an exception of peremption and dismissing the inheritance claims of alleged descendants claiming to be heirs of the decedent’s children who were born outside of marriage. We affirm. FACTS George Matthews died in 1930. More than seventy years later, alleged descendants came forward and filed pleadings into his succession proceeding

Williams, Senior Circuit Judge: Officers of the United States swear to "faithfully discharge the duties of the[ir] office." 5 U.S.C. § 3331 ; see also U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8 (requiring the President to swear that he "will faithfully execute the Offic

ROBINSON, J. ¶ 1. Defendant appeals his conviction of driving under the influence (DUI), arguing that the trial court impermissibly burdened the exercise of his Fourth Amendment rights when it allowed evidence of his refusal to submit to a warrantless blood draw and then instructed the jury that it was permitted but not required to draw an inference from that evidence. He additionally a

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge. Donald Harvey appeals his convictions and his sentence for receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography. Harvey argues the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his nolo contendere plea, that his sentence was substantively unreasonable, and that his two convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court did not

335 F.Supp.2d 878 (2004) LaMarquist MATTHEWS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Stephanie A. STORGION, M.D., et al., Defendants. No. 03-2600-D. United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division. September 9, 2004. *879 *880 T. Robert Hill, Esq., Randall J. Phillips, Hill, Boren, Jackson, TN,

OPINION BY Judge BROBSON. Petitioner Michelle V. Matthews (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board). The Board reversed a decision of a Referee, which granted Claimant unemployment compensation benefits. Instead, the Board denied Claimant benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law),1 based

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: *362 The District of Columbia and the State of Maryland commenced this action against Donald J. Trump in his official *363 capacity as President of the United State

Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge Plaintiff Matthew Thaler ("Thaler" or "Plaintiff") originally brought this action against Defendant Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. ("Campaign" or "Defendant") and the Maryland State Police, stemming from his removal from a campaign rally in April of 2016 for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint, dropping the Mary

SIPPEL, District Judge. Donald Fentress appeals the decision of the district court 4 affirming the Commissioner’s partial denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits under the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, 1381.

EISMANN, Justice. This is an appeal out of Canyon County from a judgment dismissing an action for adverse possession on the ground that the statutory amendment to Idaho Code section 5-210, which increased the required period for adverse possession from five to twenty years, applied to the Plaintiffs, who did not have a cause of action at the time of the amendment. We affirm the

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: Virginia law criminalizes the possession, purchase, or consumption of alcohol by someone who has been interdicted by a Virginia court. Interdiction is a civil order designating that a person is a "habitual drunkard" or has been convicted of driving while intoxicated. In this case, a group of homeless people suffering from alcoholism challenged the constitution

OPINION OWENS, Circuit Judge: Defendant Donald Wanland, Jr. appeals from his jury convictions and sentence for tax related charges, including tax evasion. Although Wanland raises many arguments challenging his convictions and sentence, none has merit, so we affirm the district court in all respects. 1

BEVERLY, THOMAS M., Associate . Judge. Among a bevy of other offenses, the State charged Appellant with Lewd or Lascivious Battery (victim 12 or older, but less than 16) and two counts of Lewd or Lascivious Conduct (victim under 16). At trial, Appellant requested .the court instruct the jury on the permissive lesser-included offense of Unnatural and Lascivious

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 8, 2016 Decided March 31, 2017 No. 16-5011 JIHAD DHIAB, DETAINEE, GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION AND SHAKER AAMER, AS NEXT FRIEND OF JIHAD DHIAB, APPELLEES v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPELLANTS

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Lucas v. Englewood Cmty. Hosp. & RSKCO, 963 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). DAVIS, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

726 S.E.2d 416 (2012) 315 Ga. App. 464 DEMERE LANDING CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION v. MATTHEWS et al. No. A11A2154. Court of Appeals of Georgia. February 22, 2012. *417 Jason Alexander Lomonaco, for Demere Landing Condominium Owners Association. Donald Carlton Gibson, for Matthews et al. MI

Donald L. Corbin, Justice. Appellant James A. Neal, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, appeals the order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court suspending Appellee Charles Dawson Matthew’s license to practice law for a period of fourteen months. Mr. Neal sets forth three points for reversal: (1) that the evidence warranted disbarment; (

2015 WI 58 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2012AP1493 COMPLETE TITLE: Donald Christ, individually and as Special Administrators of the Estate of Gail P. Christ, deceased, Jacqueline Radosevich, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Gary Radosevic

Griffith, Circuit Judge: In May 2018, the President issued three executive orders regarding relations between the federal government and its employees. Unions representing federal employees brought suit in the district court challenging various aspects of the orders. The district court concluded that certain provisions in the orders were unlawful and enjoined the President's subordina