Cases

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JAMES DUBOSE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, KEVIN MYERS, WARDEN Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County No. 13370 Jim T. Hamilton, Judge No. M2004-01021-CCA-R3-HC - Filed November 9, 2004 ORDER The Appellant, James Dubose, has filed a petition to rehear in this case.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JAMES DUBOSE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, KEVIN MYERS, WARDEN Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County No. 13370 Jim T. Hamilton, Judge No. M2004-01021-CCA-R3-HC - Filed October 15, 2004 This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of C

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 343 ¶ 1. A jury in the Jasper County Circuit Court convicted Robert T. Dubose of three counts of gratification of lust under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-5-23(1) (Rev. 2006).1 Dubose was sentenced to serve ten years fo

JAMES C. DEVER III, Chief United States District Judge *750On July 2, 2015, Western Plastics, Inc., ("WP" or "plaintiff") filed this action against DuBose Strapping, Inc., ("DuBose" or "defendant") alleging patent infringement [D.E. 1]. On September 8, 2017, DuBose moved for partial summary judgment [D.E. 49]. On October 9, 2017, WP moved for partial summary judgment on

259 S.W.3d 213 (2008) John A. SCHMIDT and Port Arthur Surgical Association, P.A, Appellants v. Heather DUBOSE, Appellee. No. 09-07-492 CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. Submitted on January 3, 2008. Delivered June 26, 2008. Dale Burrus Frisby and Christopher D. Lindstrom, Kroger, Myers, Frisby & Hirsch, Houston, for appellants.

Opinion of the Court COX, Chief Judge: Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of a military judge alone and found guilty of violating a lawful general order by manufacturing and possessing a bomb; violating 26 USC § 5861(e) by possessing a destructive device made in violation of 26 USC § 5822; violating 26 USC § 5861(f) by wrongfully making a destructive device in violation of 26

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as DuBose v. McGuffey, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-8.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other

OPINION BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: Appellants appeal the judgments entered. August 21, 2013, in this -wrongful death and survival action. We affirm. The trial court has aptly summarized the history of this matter as follows: Plaintiff, Robert Dubose, Administrator of the Estate of Elise Dubose, filed t

HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v Dubose (2019 NY Slip Op 06481) HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v Dubose 2019 NY Slip Op 06481 Decided on September 11, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law R

Gants, Ralph D., J. This case arises out of differences of interpretation of a settlement agreement entered into between the plaintiff Peter Massmanian (“Massmanian”) and the defendants William DuBose, Blaine DuBose, and what the agreement describes as the DuBose Entities, which are various corporations controlled by William and Blaine DuBose. For all practical purposes, there are three disputes that have prevented this case fro

On Application for Rehearing THOMPSON, Presiding Judge. The opinion of August 16, 2013, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor. DuBose Construction Company, LLC (“DuBose”), appeals from a judgment in favor of James Simmons in this workers’ compensation action. This is the third time these parties have been before this court in this matter.

74 P.3d 1072 (2003) 335 Or. 579 In the Matter of the Compensation of Jodie M. Dubose, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION and Evergreen Restaurant Group, Respondents on Review, v. Jodie M. DUBOSE, Petitioner on Review. (WCB 97-01993; CA A103853; SC S47731). Supreme Court of Oregon. Argued and Submitted September 10, 2001. Decided August 7, 20

Affirmed and Opinion Filed September 19, 2022 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00419-CV No. 05-20-01046-CV RICHARD A. MYERS, Appellant V. HCB REAL HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District

811 S.W.2d 251 (1991) David T. BARD, Commissioner of Banking & Insurance of the State of Vermont, Appellant, v. CHARLES R. MYERS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. & Charles R. Myers, Individually, and as President of Charles R. Myers Insurance Agency, Inc., Appellees. No. 04-89-00565-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. June 12, 1991.

BROSKY, Judge: Appellant, DuBose, was convicted of rape, criminal conspiracy, possessing instruments of crime generally, possession of prohibited offensive weapons and involuntary sexual intercourse. Post-verdict motions were denied and a sentence was imposed amounting to multiple current terms of imprisonment of l}h to 20 years for rape, l}/z to 20 years for involuntary sexual intercourse, 5 to 10 years for

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-97-00590-CR Steven Edward Myers, Appellant v. The State of Tex

573 S.W.2d 19 (1978) Alton Eugene MYERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 55348. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Panel No. 3. November 8, 1978. Frank W. Sullivan, III, Fort Worth, for appellant. Davis S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., for the State. Before DOUGLAS, DAVIS and VOLLERS, JJ. OPINION TOM G. DAVIS, J

The opinion of the court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Simpson. The action below was an action on the equity side of the court, for the recovery and assignment of a homestead in certain lands located in Georgetown county. The lands in question formerly belonged to the appellant, but were sold in 1882 by the sheriff of Georgetown under an execution against the appellant in favor of respondent, who became the