Cases

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2023-1928 _____________________________ RANDY JACKSON, Appellant, v. RICKY D. DIXON, Secretary of Department of Corrections, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. Fred L. Koberlein, Jr., Judge. May 14, 2024 PER C

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

951 F.2d 344 Jacksonv.Dixon-Bookman* NO. 91-1587 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Dec 04, 1991 1 Appeal From: N.D.Tex. 2

Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.

Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 24, 2024 NO. 03-24-00140-CV Dedric Dixon, Appellant v. Sylvia Griffith Sanders, Kevin W. Boyd, Albert Jackson, and James Dixon, Appellees APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS D

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-24-00140-CV Dedric Dixon, Appellant v. Sylvia Griffith Sanders, Kevin W. Boyd, Albert Jackson, and James Dixon, Appellees FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-19-004019, THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC19-1624 ____________ KIM JACKSON, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ____________ No. SC21-502 ____________ KI

ORDER ON DETROIT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION REGARDING ALLOCATION OF DAMAGES Wendy L. Hagenau, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge The “Detroit Plaintiffs” filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts II and IV [Docket No. 118] (“Motion”) and Motion Regarding Allocation of Damages [Docket No. 121] (“Allocation Motion”) following this Court’s' Order of Februar

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Wendy L. Hagenau, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge This non-dischargeability action arises out of Roy Dixon’s (“Debtor”) relationship with three pension funds: General Retirement System of the City of Detroit (“Detroit GRS”), Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit (“Detroit PFRS”), and the Board of Trustees of the City of Pon

ROBERTS, J., for the Court: ¶ 1. Seventeen customers of the Pizza Hut in Greenwood, Mississippi, filed a complaint in the Leflore County Circuit Court on March 14, 2011, against the employees of the Pizza Hut.1 In their complaint, the customers claimed that the employees negligently prepared and served them food, causing the customers to seek immediate medical treatment. In res

GRIFFIS, P.J., for the Court: ¶ 1. This case seeks to resolve whether the deceased Johnnie Lee Jones’s wife or daughter is entitled to possession of his former home. His will leaves a life estate in the home to his wife. But two other documents — an antenuptial (or prenuptial) agreement and a quitclaim deed — provide evidence of an intention that his daughter should have the house. The wife was awarded possessi

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 8, 2011 RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the November 8, 2011 Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland that plaintiffs complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P

WINDHORST, J. 11Appellant,- Louisiana Pizza Group, LLC, d/b/a Papa John’s Pizza (“LPG”), appeals the trial court’s July 27, 2016 summary judgment in favor of appellees, The Gray Insurance Company, Command Construction Industries, LLC, and Patrick Jackson (hereinafter “appellees” or “Jackson”), dismissing plaintiff, Tobias Dixon’s, claims against appellees with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court

PER CURIAM: Kirk Dixon, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals from the District Court's grant of a motion to dismiss his civil rights complaint (filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under

PER CURIAM. As the State properly concedes, the record does not support the conclusion that the trial judge made an independent determination of competency before accepting Appellant's plea entered after his competency was ostensibly restored. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Bynum v. State , 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1063 (Fla. 5th DCA May 11, 2018) ; Rumph v. State ,

Opinion issued September 13, 2012 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-10-00710-CV ——————————— TRYCO ENTERPRISES, INC., SHARON C. DIXON, JAMES DIXON, CROWN STAFFING, INC. AND TROY KEITH DIXON, Appellants

336 S.W.3d 532 (2011) Omer Lee DIXON, Jr. v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY. No. W2010-00339-SC-R3-WC. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Jackson. November 3, 2010 Session. March 3, 2011. *534 James M. Simpson and Heather W. Fletcher, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Travelers Indemnity Company. David Harde

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-96-00726-CR Kenneth Jackson, a/k/a Frank Dixon, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee