Cases

FILED Oct 02 2024, 9:04 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ELAINE E. BUCKLO, District Judge. Plaintiff Aaron Willoughby (“Willoughby”) brought this action against Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”), seeking review of the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that fol

594 S.W.2d 388 (1980) STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Janice WILLOUGHBY, Appellant. Supreme Court of Tennessee. February 19, 1980. *389 Martha Meares, Albert J. Tumpson, Meares & Meares, Maryville, for appellant. William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen., John C. Zimmermann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellee. OPINION</

PER CURIAM: In 1973, movant (hereafter defendant) entered a plea of guilty to the offense of sodomy and was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years. Thereafter, defendant filed three successive motions for post-conviction relief, all of which were consolidated and an evidentiary hearing was granted February 25, 1977. This appeal followed the order of the trial court denying defendant’s motion. Affirmed. Def

Lybrook, J. Defendants-appellants, Willoughby and Till-berry, entered guilty pleas to Safe Burglary, IC 1971, 35-1-61-1, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-702a (Burns 1956). After denial of relief pursuant to proceedings under Post Conviction Remedy Rule 1, they appeal, raising two issues for review: (1) Whether the court erred in not finding that defendants’ guilty pleas should be withdrawn because they were no

STEINFELD, Justice. Appellant James Willoughby was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and appellant Larry Stamper of aiding and abetting voluntary manslaughter. Willoughby and Stamper argue on this appeal that they were entitled to a directed verdict of dismissal because there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. These motions were made at the conclusion of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth and agai

Plaintiff Nix appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant Henry C. Beck Company ("Beck") on Nix's claim of negligence. We affirm. The facts in this case are not disputed. On January 27, 1966, Bel Air Corporation and Beck contracted for the construction of the Bel Air Mall in Mobile, Alabama, at the time the biggest shopping mall in Alabama. Pursuant to the contract, Beck was to install an automatic fire sprinkler system in the Mall. The Mall was completed in 1967. Pro

481 S.W.2d 893 (1972) Larry WILLOUGHBY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Nos. 44989-44993. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. May 31, 1972. Rehearing Denied July 19, 1972. Emmett Colvin, Jr., Dallas (on appeal only), for appellant. Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Edgar A. Mason, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty

BURKE, Chief Justice. [¶ 1] Appellant, John Henry Knospler, Jr;, was convicted of second-degree murder after he shot and killed James Baldwin in the parking lot of Racks Gentlemen’s Club in Casper, Wyoming. He asserts error in the district court’s evidentiary rulings and in the jury instruction's. We affirm Appellant’s conviction. ISSUES </

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 30 2019, 5:35 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

02/04/2026 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON HENRY LEE JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 03-06997 ___________________________________ No. W2025-01838-CCA-R10-PD ______

Taft, C. J. At the ontset, it may be observed that this court has considerable doubt as to the authority of the Budget Commission of Lake County to prosecute this appeal on behalf of Lake County. The Budget Commission is not a subdivision entitled to participate in the fund being apportioned. Thus, the Budget Commission could not be prejudiced by any decision that the Board of Tax Appeals made. To permit it to

Taft, C. J. The foregoing determination of need based solely on proposed general fund expenditures, with certain adjustments, fails to take account of the requirements set out in paragraphs two, four, five and six of the syllabus of Lake County Budget Commission v. Village of Willoughby Hills, supra (9 Ohio St. 2d 108). Furthermore, in the opinion in that case it is stated (page 113):

James G. Carr, Sr. U.S. District Judge This is a copyright-infringement case. Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC (DB), creates, markets, and licenses architectural plans for single-family homes. (Doc. 58 at ¶ 1). It contends that defendants-Forrester Wehrle Homes, Inc.; Wehrle Development, Ltd.; and their principals Jeffrey, Richard, and Joseph Wehrle (collectively, FWH)-infringed its copyrights in twenty-three architectu

James G. Carr, , Sr. U.S. District Judge *937This is a copyright-infringement case. Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC (DB), creates, markets, and licenses architectural plans for single-family homes. (Doc. 58 at ¶ 1). It contends that defendants-Forrester Wehrle Homes, Inc.; Wehrle Development, Ltd.; and their principals Jeffrey, Richard, and Joseph

OPINION {¶ 1} Appellant, Lemuel C. Henry, Jr., appeals from the April 11, 2007 judgment entry of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, which sentenced him for one count of complicity to trafficking in cocaine. For the following reasons, we affirm. {¶ 2} Substantive and Procedural Facts {¶ 3} On the night of December 19,

James G. Carr, Sr. U.S. District Judge This is a copyright-infringement case in which the plaintiff, Design Basics, LLC (DB), alleges that the defendants - Forrester Wehrle Homes, Inc.; Forrester Wehrle Development, Ltd.; and their principals Jeffrey, Joseph, and Richard Wehrle (collectively, FWH) - infringed DB's copyrights in a series of architectural plans. DB alleges that FWH copied its plans and/or used them wi

James G. Carr Sr., U.S. District Judge Plaintiff Design Basics (DB), the creator and owner of architectural designs for homes, sued defendants Forrester Wehrle Homes, Inc., and Wehrle Development, Ltd., alleging that the defendants used many of DB's designs without permission. After protracted proceedings and a status conference on April 30, 2017, the Clerk's Office on the following day entered, as I had neglected

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of June 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 5th day of September 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is