Cases

ORDER PER CURIAM. Teddy C. Lawson appeals from the final judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the March 23, 2006, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying Mr. Lawson’s entitlement to service connection for cerebrovas-cular accident secondary to service-connected skull defect. Lawson v. Peake, No. 06-2110, 2008

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-1053 SHAWNQIZ LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIC HARRIS, BRANDON POFELSKI and CITY OF ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court f

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-1053 SHAWNQIZ LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIC HARRIS, BRANDON POFELSKI and CITY OF ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court f

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC15-650 ____________ DALE LEE NORMAN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [March 2, 2017] PARIENTE, J. In this case, we de

OPINION OF THE COURT Richard Lee Price, J. By habeas petition submitted November 12, 2014, petitioner moves for an order vacating her parole warrant and releasing her from the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS or respondent). Specifically, petitioner asserts that she is being illegally detained because DOCCS failed to provide timely notice of the alleged

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2020-CA-00095-COA ANGELA LAMBES APPELLANT v. ERIC LAMBES APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/18/2019 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARK ANTHONY MAPLES COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPEL

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC19-1709 ____________ JEFFREY LEE ATWATER, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. August 13, 2020 PER CURIAM. Jeffrey Lee Atwater appe

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PER CURIAM. After affirming the order dismissing Mark Eric Osterback’s latest rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence, this court issued an order directing Osterback to show cause why he should not be barred from further pro se filings in this court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). Osterback

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Shelton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2012); State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012). SAWAYA, LAWSON, and BERGER, JJ., concur.

801 F.Supp.2d 781 (2011) Brookie C. BIGLANDS, in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Cynthia Ann Boldt, and Brookie C. Biglands, in her personal capacity, Plaintiffs, v. RAYTHEON EMPLOYEE SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN[1] and Raytheon Company, Plan Administrator, Defendants. Civil No. 1:10cv351. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. July

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 22, 2016 JAMES THOMAS v. RANDY LEE, WARDEN Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Johnson County No. CC-15-CR-151 Stacy L. Street, Judge No. E2015-02427-CCA-R3-HC – Filed July 21, 2016 The Petitioner, James Thomas, filed a petition in the Johnson County Criminal Court seeking

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS No. 15-4458 ERIC J. STEWART, APPELLANT, V. ROBERT L. WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Argued February 13, 20181

EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge: Treating Defendants-Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The petition for rehearing en banc is also DENIED. The prior opinion, Darden v. City of Fort Worth, Tex.,

ON MOTION TO REVIEW TRIAL COURT’S POST-MANDATE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND DENIAL OF MOTION TO TAX COSTS LAMBERT, J. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c), Arvita M. Coleman (“Former Wife”) seeks review of a trial court order that she contends awarded her attorney’s fees, but denied her motion for taxation of appellate costs. Former Wife previously appeale

SAWAYA, J. The issue we must resolve is whether two women involved in a lesbian relationship for several years share parental rights and responsibilities to a child born out of that relationship. The two women are Appellant, the biological mother, and Appellee, the birth mother. This is a case of first impression in Florida. I. Factual and Procedural Background The facts are not in dis

GRIFFIN, J. Arvita M. Coleman [“Former Wife”] appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Michael Bland [“Former Husband”]. We find no reversible error in any of the issues raised on appeal, save one. Among the issues in dispute between these parties was the question whether any part of Former Husband’s pension was a marital asset. The trial court made no finding in the final judgment concerning whether

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Shelton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2012); State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012). SAWAYA, LAWSON, and BERGER, JJ., concur.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Shelton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2012); State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012). SAWAYA, LAWSON, and BERGER, JJ., concur.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Eric Robinson was a vice president of sales of Lakeview Technology, a vendor of software that enables users to access their data during system outages. Late in 2004 Robinson entered negotiations with Vision Solutions, Inc., one of Lakeview’s competitors; he did not inform Lakeview about this step, nor did he inform his employer when he accepted Vision’

622 F.3d 1007 (2010) Ronald M. ZETINO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-70390. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted October 9, 2009. Filed February 18, 2010. Amended August 30, 2010. *1008 Niels W. Frenzen, Esq., (argued), Univ