Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Gerald Mitchell”
Gerald Mitchell Williams III v. State of Floridapublic domain
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D19-4241 _____________________________ GERALD MITCHELL WILLIAMS III, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson County. Wade Mercer, Judge. September 21, 2020 PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Mill
State v. Gerald P. Mitchellpublic domain
2022 WI App 31 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2019AP1942-CR †Petition for Review filed Complete Title of Case: STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. GERALD P. MITCHELL,
State v. Gerald P. Mitchellpublic domain
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (dissenting). ¶ 87 A blood draw is a particularly intrusive search. It invades the interior of the human body and implicates interests in human dignity and privacy. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 769-70,
Mitchell, Gerald Waynepublic domain
b 4=\·\-(~ :9 '{__LL_/~QJ~ J-fl, 0 7q -03
William Gerald Mitchell v. State of Mississippipublic domain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2002-DR-00479-SCT WILLIAM GERALD MITCHELL a/k/a WILLIAM JERALD MITCHELL v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 7/24/1998 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KOSTA N. VLAHOS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION
William Gerald Mitchell v. State of Mississippipublic domain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 1998-DP-01785-SCT WILLIAM GERALD MITCHELL a/k/a WILLIAM JERALD MITCHELL v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/24/1998 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KOSTA N. VLAHOS COURT FROM WHICH HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPEALED: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KEITH PISARICH ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTO
William Gerald Mitchell v. State of Mississippipublic domain
Link to 1998sDPs01785sSCT
Gerald Wayne Mitchell v. Statepublic domain
Opinion issued May 5, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The
Mitchell v. Colvinpublic domain
ORDER TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings [DE 25 & 27]. For the reasons detailed below, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED and defendant’s motion is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED. *648 BACKGROUN
Mitchell v. Wisconsinpublic domain
I A In Birchfield v. North Dakota , 579 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), we recounted the country's efforts over the years to address the terrible problem of drunk
State v. Mitchellpublic domain
Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD. h Gerald Mitchell appeals his conviction for attempted possession of crack cocaine. After review of the record in light of the applicable law and arguments of the parties, we affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence. Relevant Facts The appellant and Courtney Conway were arrested on December 31, 2004, and charged with possession of crack cocaine
Mitchell v. Wisconsinpublic domain
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted.
Mitchell v. Eppspublic domain
641 F.3d 134 (2011) William Gerald MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Christopher B. EPPS, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. No. 10-70006. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 16, 2011. *139 Kenneth Harold Coghlan (Court-Appointed), Rayburn Coghlan Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Oxford,
MITCHELL v. STATEpublic domain
ROWLAND, JUDGE: ¶ 1 Appellant Immanuel Gerald Dean Mitchell appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CF-2015-435, for Murder in the First Degree-Felony Murder (Count 1) in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7(B) and Conspiracy to Commit Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon (Count 2) in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 421.
Charlie Lee Mitchell v. Warden Gerald Masonpublic domain
325 F.3d 732 Charlie Lee MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellee,v.Warden Gerald MASON, Respondent-Appellant. No. 99-1839. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Decided and Filed: April 7, 2003. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Rolf E. Berg, State Appellate Defender Office, Detroit, MI, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Mitchell v. Skeypublic domain
ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION To the Appellate Division, Superior Court: *109A petition for certification of the judgment in A-001657-14 having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same; It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
Mitchell v. Skeypublic domain
To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:A petition for certification of the judgment in A-001657-14 having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
Charlie Lee Mitchell v. Warden Gerald Masonpublic domain
MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAUGHTREY, J., joined. CARR, D.J., (pp.574-81), delivered a separate opinion. OPINION MOORE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-Appellee Charlie Lee Mitchell (“Mitchell”) was convicted in a Michigan state court of second-degree murder and sentenced to a term of ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Throughout his six-month confinement in cus
People v. Mitchellpublic domain
YEGAN, Acting P.J. *351 Joshua Mitchell appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of simple assault (count 1; Pen. Code, § 240 ) , assault with a deadly weapon (scissors; count 2; § 245, subd. (a)(1)), second degree robbery with personal use of a deadly weapon (scissors; c
United States v. Gerald Bainbridgepublic domain
OPINION BEA, Circuit Judge: This case presents two questions: can a district court impose a sexual deviancy evaluation as a condition of supervised release when deviant sexual conduct was not an element of the underlying crime of conviction? If so, is it essential the Government prove a change in circumstances since the original supervised release condit