Cases

KELLER, P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which PRICE, WOMACK, KEASLER, HERVEY, COCHRAN, and ALCALA, JJ., joined. During voir dire, the trial judge said that he personally would want to testify if accused of a crime but admonished the prospective jurors that others might have a different perspective, that a defendant c

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS State of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Respondent FILED September 25, 2017 vs.) No. 16-0268 (Wood County 14-F-295) RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPRE

125 Mich. App. 598 (1983) 337 N.W.2d 252 DeKIND v. GALE MANUFACTURING COMPANY Docket No. 61294. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided May 5, 1983. McCroskey, Feldman, Cochrane & Brock (by Thomas D. Geil), for plaintiff. Amicus Curiae: Conklin, Benham, McLeod, Ducey & Ottaway, P.C. (by Martin L. Critc

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: Cochran appeals his conviction for extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. He argues that the district court’s failure to conduct an adequate colloquy with him before accepting his written waiver of a jury trial constitutes reversible error. We disagree. I. FACTS In open court, before Cochran signed a waiver of

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-08-00027-CV ______________________________ LINDA GALE HURLEY, Appellant V. WOOD COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-855

192 Ga. App. 30 (1989) 383 S.E.2d 590 GALE v. HAYES MICROCOMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC. A89A0627. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided June 6, 1989. Rehearing Denied June 21, 1989. Robert M. Goldberg, for appellant. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Cary Ichter, William A. Capp, Jerry B. Blackstock, Alston &am;

RESTANI, Judge: Plaintiffs-appellees are Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) sergeants who alleged retaliation by their employer for exercise of First Amendment Rights. Defendant-appellant, the City of Los Angeles (“the City”), was found liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) following a jury trial. Appellant asserts it is entitled to entry of judgment in its favo

717 F.Supp. 1413 (1989) James COCHRAN, Plaintiff, v. ST. LOUIS PREPARATORY SEMINARY, Defendant. No. 88-1430C(1). United States District Court, E.D. Missouri. August 18, 1989. J. Martin Hadican, Clayton, Mo., for plaintiff. Dennis Collins, Greensfelder, Hemker, Weise, Gale & Chappelow, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant. MEMORANDUM NANGL

Cochrane, J.: The employer was conducting an advertising business in an office fifteen feet square divided by a partition. He used, in such business a multigraphing machine and a typewriting machine. The claimant was his only employee and she operated both machines. She was twenty-three years old. On February 22, 1919, while using the multigraphing machine she cut the end of the second finger of her left hand. The following da

59 F.3d 179NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order. James Arthur TAYLOR, Petition

Mr. Justice Eakin delivered the following dissenting opinion: There is no similarity between the Medford charter and that of St. Johns, either in its language or effect. The language of the Medford charter that takes it out of the local option law is that the city council shall have power and authority to “license, tax, regulate, or prohibit, barrooms, drinking shops * * irrespective of any general law in the St

FROM GRAFTON SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, TRIAL TERM. The exact mode in which this machinery was affixed to the saw-mill building is not stated in the case; but from the course of the argument, and from what does appear in the case, it is to be assumed that, if it had been made by the owner in the same way, those movable things would have lost their independent character as chattels, becoming part of the immovable thing — the mill — so as to be included in its description and follow it

90 S.E.2d 178 (1955) 197 Va. 483 Ethel COCHRAN, Executrix of the Will of Rose Wright, Deceased, v. Everett BISE. Everett BISE v. Glyn R. PHILLIPS, Administrator D.B.N. of the Estate of R. L. Wright, Deceased. Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. November 28, 1955. Rehearing Denied January 13, 1956. *

Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant to serve an answer within twenty days on payment of said costs and the costs granted in the order appealed from. Present — Cochrane, P. J., Van Kirk, McCann, Davis and Whitmyer, JJ.

Hammond, J. The evidence tended to show that affixed to the house of the defendant was a conductor, constructed and used for the purpose of carrying water from the roof to the public sidewalk adjoining; that there was a groove in the sidewalk, extending from the end of the conductor to the outer edge of the sidewalk ; that the water from the conductor had frozen in and about the groove upon the sidewalk, and that the plaintiff, w

Hyman, O. J. Plaintiffs shipped on 21st of December, 1859, in the port of Marseilles, on the bark Oleopatra, a number of bales of walnuts, to be delivered at New Orleans. They sued to recover the loss resulting from the damaged condition of the walnuts. The lower court gave judgment against plaintiffs, and they have appealed. On the 9th February, 1860, the bark left Marseille

The opinion of the court was delivered, January 5th 1864, by Woodward, J. — The affidavits of defence, original and supplemental, though not drawn with such fulness as to be entirely exempt from just criticism, do, nevertheless, suggest grounds of defence which are worthy to be considered. Whether the court below entered judgment for the plaintiff on the technical objections contained in the first four reasons

Pfleger, J. Thomas C. Pearce, Harry T. Atkins and Henry Pearce carried on two kinds of business-in this city — one for the’ manufacture of warp and cotton goods, under the firm name of Henry Pearce’s Sons, and the other for the manufacture of articles of harness, etc., under the firm name and style of Pearce, Atkins &r Co. The concern of Henry Pearce’s Sons consisted of the Deercreek Mills, located at Fifth and Lock stre

320 F.Supp.2d 120 (2004) SIEMENS WESTINGHOUSE POWER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. DICK CORPORATION, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, Continental Casualty Company and National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Defendants. Dick Corporation, on Behalf of the Consortium of Dick Corporation and Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation, and Individually, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. AES Londonderry, L.L.C., Sycamore Ridge, L.L.C., Stone &