Cases

206 Ga. App. 596 (1992) 426 S.E.2d 174 HICKS v. DOE. A92A0911. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided November 5, 1992. Reconsideration Denied December 4, 1992. Jack F. Witcher, Maryellen S. Mitchell, for appellant. *599 Tisinger, Tisinger, Vance & Greer, Thomas E. Greer

DON E. BURRELL, JR., P.J. - concurs NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J. - concurs

FILcD COURT OF APPEALS OiV 5TAT£ OF WASHINGTON 20I3OCT -7 m 9= U7 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SUNNY GAUTAM and SUMAN GAUTAM, husband and wife and their No. 69406-5-1 marital community,

OPINION & ORDER HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge: Plaintiff TYRONE HICKS (“Hicks”) was convicted in 1999 in Bronx Supreme Court of attempted rape and attempted sodomy of a woman, “T.T.”1 He was sentenced to eight years and served his time. Four years after his release, however, Hicks’ conviction was vacated; he had been exonerated by exculpatory DNA e

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL MARY GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION This is a defamation case in which Plaintiff alleges third-party subpoena recipient Jane S. Gari (Gari) posted a story (the Story) on her website wrongfully accusing Plaintiff of raping Defendant Jane Doe a/k/a “Susan” (Susan). The Court has juri

452 F.Supp.2d 88 (2006) HICKS (Rasul) v. BUSH. Al Odah v. U.S. Khadar v. Bush. El-Banna v. Bush. Gherebi v. Bush. Anam v. Bush. Almurbati v. Bush. Abdah v. Bush. Hamdan v. Bush. Al Qosi v. Bush. Paracha v. Bush. Zemiri v. Bush. Deghayes v. Bush. Mustapha v. Bush. Abdullah v. Bush.<

Lynn, J. The petitioner, John Doe, appeals an order of the Superior Court (McNamara, J.) granting summary judgment for the respondent, the State of New Hampshire, on the petitioner’s declaratory judgment action, which sought a ruling that RSA chapter 651-B is unconstitutional, as applied to him, because it violates the prohibition against retrospective laws and the Due Process Clause of the New Hampshire Constitution. <

[Cite as State v. Hicks, 2025-Ohio-2520.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : No. 114112 Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : JOHN R. HICKS, :

625 F.3d 1182 (2010) Jacob DOE, a minor, by parents and next friends, James and Joyce DOE; Janet Doe, a minor, by parents and next friends, James and Joyce Doe; Karl Doe, a minor, by parents and next friends, Kirk and Kate Doe; Lisa Doe, a minor, by mother and next friend, Laura Doe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS/BERNICE PAUAHI BISHOP ESTATE; Nainoa Thompson, in his capacity as Trustee; Diane J. Plotts, in her capacity as Trustee;

[Cite as State v. Hicks, 2025-Ohio-2223.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114432 v. : TRAVIS HICKS, :

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs-appellants Mamie L. Hicks, Rogers Hicks, Annetta Rowe, and Kimalin Jones appeal from the judgment of the District Court (W.D.N.Y., Skretny, J.) granting defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, denying plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and denying plaintiffs’ motions to take more discovery and to amend the complaint. The parties’ familiarity with the facts and proce

[Cite as State v. Hicks, 2025-Ohio-3068.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114532 v. : JORDAN HICKS, :

NO. 12-11-00248-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS RAUL TREVINO, § APPEAL FROM THE 349TH APPELLANT V. NATRENIA L. HICKS, GWENDOLYN SPURLOCK, JOHN DOE SWEETIN, GREGORY OLIVER, DEBBIE ERWIN, § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CHERYL LAWSON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA20-665-2 Filed 31 December 2024 Randolph County, No. 17 CRS 52825 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WENDY DAWN LAMB HICKS On remand by plurality opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Hicks, 385 N.C. 52, 891 S.E.2d 235 (2023), reversing and remanding a published opinion by a unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals in State v. Hick

DARRIN P. GAYLES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania's ("Defendant") Motion for Final Summary Judgment (the "Motion"). [ECF No. 45]. The Court has considered the Motion, the record, argument of counsel at the hearing on the Motion, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTE

[Cite as State v. Hicks, 2025-Ohio-547.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 113914 v. : BERTRAM HICKS, :

Case: 22-30184 Document: 00516883884 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED

[Cite as State v. Hicks, 2023-Ohio-3517.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 22CA011871 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE HARRY HICKS

[Cite as State v. Hicks, 2024-Ohio-974.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 112419 v. : RONALD HICKS, JR., :

356 F.Supp.2d 1123 (2004) John DOE and Jane Doe, on behalf of themselves and as Guardians ad Litem for their minor child, Preschooler, Plaintiffs, v. The State of NEVADA, et. al., Defendants. No. CV-S-03-1500LRH(RJJ). United States District Court, D. Nevada. September 30, 2004. *1124 Marianne Lanuti, Law Office of Marianne C. Lan