Cases

Appellate Case: 25-7052 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 14, 2026

STRINE, Chief Justice: I. This petition for post-conviction relief argues that defendant Darius Harden suffered prejudice because his attorney did not represent him effectively at his sentencing hearing. Sentencing was a critical stage for Harden because he committed an awful crime of violence, and did so in front of the victim's five-year-old

CHANDLER, Justice, for the Court; ¶ 1. On September 18, 2008, after a jury trial, Harden was convicted of the statutory rape of his stepdaughter, L.Q.,1 pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 97-3-65(l)(b).2 On December 16, 2008, Harden was sentenced to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), followed by ten

679 S.E.2d 628 (2009) STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Tanya D. HARDEN, Defendant Below, Appellant. No. 34268. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted April 8, 2009. Decided June 4, 2009. Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Benjamin July 27, 2009. *631 Darrell V.

*305 MEMORANDUM JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge. Plaintiffs Stanley and Marisol Laskowski initiated this action against the United States of America Department of Veterans Affairs for damages pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. The plaintiffs allege medical malpractice against the medical professiona

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0176p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellant, - CARY HARDEN-BEY,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2009-KA-00141-SCT TIMMY TERRELL HARDEN a/k/a TIMMY HARDIN v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/16/2008 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS BY: G

524 F.3d 789 (2008) Cary HARDEN-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. RUTTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 06-1473. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Submitted: March 13, 2008. Decided and Filed: May 12, 2008. *790 ON BRIEF: Cary Jerome Harden-Bey, Munising, Michigan, pro se. Before: MOORE, GIL

924 A.2d 247 (2007) Annette HARDEN, Rose Thomas, Nickea Nicole Rowe, Dawn Michelle Rowe, Aline Black and the City of Wilmington, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Delaware, Plaintiffs, v. The CHRISTINA SCHOOL DISTRICT, The Christina School District Board of Education, and James R. Durr, Dr. John Mackenzie, Gina Backus, Dr. Karl B. Brockenbrough, George E. Evans, Beverly A. Howell, David Resler, and Dr. Lillian M. Lowery (in their official c

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 22-1882, 23-1315, 23-1322 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. LOUIS D. COLEMAN III, Defendant, Appellant. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Judge]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2023 Term FILED _____________________ November 6, 2023 released at 3:00 p.m. No. 21-0831 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COU

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALVIN W. THOMPSON, District Judge. The plaintiff, Lester Gorham (“Gor-ham”), brings this action against the defendant, Town of Trumbull Board of Education (the “BOE”), alleging that the BOE discriminated against him by terminating his employment based on his race (African American), color (black), and age (46), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

*213OPINION MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer. FINAL ORDER Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this rule challenge case at Miami, Florida, before Michael M. Parrish, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on the following days: October 24, 29, 30, 31 and November 1, 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION T. MICHAEL PUTNAM, United States Magistrate Judge. This cause is before the court1 on a motion to dismiss filed on June 22, 2012, by the defendants, Madison City Board of Education and Dr. Dee Fowler, the Board’s superintendent, (collectively referred to as “the Board”). They assert that the complaint must be dismissed as to all claims against th

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal Action No. 19-324 (BAH) JOSEPH SMITH, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION After a seven-day jury trial that began with jury selection on October 18, 2021, defendant was convicted on O

Case: 22-2105 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ADEE HONEY FARMS, ET AL., Plaintiffs MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, TROY MILLER, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND

Case: 22-2105 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ADEE HONEY FARMS, ET AL., Plaintiffs MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, TROY MILLER, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND

Jack B. Weinstein, Senior United States District Judge Table of Contents I. Introduction...195 II. Facts...196 A. Defendant's Background...196 B. Defendant's Health...196 C. Defendant's Involvement with ISIL...197

726 F.Supp.2d 868 (2010) Allen and Jennifer SAGAN Individually and o/b/o Jane Doe, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. SUMNER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and Donna Weidenbenner Individually and in her official capacity as Special Needs Teacher of Station Camp Elementary School, Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-1003. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division. July 6

OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Kings Local School District Board of Education, Jerry Gasper, and Shelley Bogaert (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 17). Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition (Doc. 20) and subsequently filed an amended response in opposition (Doc. 26). Defendants have filed a rep