Cases

*334 OPINION AND ORDER SHIRAA. SCHEINDLIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On April 5, 2015, O’Rourke Marine Services L.P., L.L.P. (“O’Rourke”) brought an arrest action in rem against certain vessels owned by the China Ocean Shipping Company (“COSCO”) related to certain supplies of gasoline fuel (referred to as “bunkers!’) provided b

677 A.2d 509 (1996) Kenneth M. DICKERSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 95-CM-837. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Submitted May 8, 1996. Decided May 21, 1996. *510 Steven H. Schiff, Washington, DC, appointed by this court, was on the brief for appellant. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

721 A.2d 945 (1998) Marquis T. SAMS and Jibreel K. Reid, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. Nos. 93-CF-1265, 93-CF-1398. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued November 13, 1996. Decided December 10, 1998. *947 Thomas G. Ross, Riverdale, MD, appointed by this court, for appellant Sams. Gregory C. Powe

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00042-CV Billy D. Baker and Gina A. Baker, Appellants v. Ernest L. Meadows, Larry Anders, Mark J. Wills, JM Design Build, LLC, Danny P. Bamber and Max Holton, Appellees On appeal from the

LINDSEY, J. International Security Management Group, Inc. ("ISMG") and Jorge Acuna appeal ("Acuna") from a final judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of William and Lisa Rolland (the "Rollands"). The Rollands cross-appeal the trial court's partial denial of their motion for leave to amend the complaint to add punitive damages against ISMG.1 Because there is a reasonable possibility that the jur

LINDSEY, J. International Security Management Group, Inc. ("ISMG") and Jorge Acuna appeal ("Acuna") from a final judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of William and Lisa Rolland (the "Rollands"). The Rollands cross-appeal the trial court's partial denial of their motion for leave to amend the complaint to add punitive damages against ISMG.1 Because there is a reasonable possibility that the jur

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINSON and Judge HARWELL joined. DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge. Ronald Forrest challenges his conviction for the sexual exploitation of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2251(a) and 2252A(a)(5)(b) (West 2000). He contends that Congress’s Commerce Clause authori

683 A.2d 118 (1996) Rocky L. BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 94-CF-1506. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued May 22, 1996. Decided August 22, 1996. *120 Claudia Crichlow, Public Defender Service, with whom James Klein and Samia Fam, Public Defender Service, were on the brief, for appel

700 A.2d 207 (1997) Franklin H. PETTIFORD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 95-CO-637. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued May 9, 1996. Decided August 28, 1997. Neal L. Thomas, Washington, DC, appointed by the court, for appellant. Gina L. Simms, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Eric H. Holder, Jr., United State

PILLARD, Circuit Judge: In this case we consider a pair of challenges to a 2012 regulation promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), revising Clean Air Act standards for emissions of hexavalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium is a carcinogenic compound emitted into the air during various chrome-finishing processes at more than a thousand facilities across the co

705 A.2d 1077 (1997) Johnny W. LITTLEJOHN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 96-CF-150. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued March 4, 1997. Decided October 2, 1997. *1078 Betty J. Clark, Washington, DC, appointed by the court, for appellant. *1079 Mari

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GINA MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. No. 19-cv-2560 (DLF) KILOLO KIJAKAZI,1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER In this action, plaintiff Gina Mitchell challenges the Social Secu

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge. Because two beneficiaries of a National Labor Relations Board (Board) back pay settlement are in arrears on child support payments, we are asked to decide whether the Child Support Recovery Unit of the Iowa Department of Human Services can garnish Board funds. This lawsuit arose out of the Board’s objection to having the funds garnished before these monies are in the physical possession of the r

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Aaron Lyles seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Swinney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DYER2024 OK 72Case Number: SCBD-7680Decided: 10/08/2024THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2024 OK 72, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLI

OSCN Found Document:STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DYER Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case Print Only

OSCN Found Document:STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DYER Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case Print Only

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ' This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of St. Peters, Missouri’s Mot tion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57). The motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition. I. Background Plaintiffs Gina Thompson and Karen McCabe (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Class Action Complaint in this Court on

PER CURIAM: Roland A. Williams, Sr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent motions for reconsideration and for a certificate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealabi