Cases

On Direct Appeal RUSH, Chief Justice. James Griffith was convicted of murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery, and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole (“LWOP”). On direct appeal, he claims (1) he was denied due process in discovery; (2) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; (3) the trial court abused its discretion

193 A.2d 427 (1963) George A. COOK, Appellant, v. JAMES E. GRIFFITH, INC., a corporation, Appellee. No. 3258. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued June 24, 1963. Decided August 22, 1963. George T. Vayda, New York City, for appellant. Wallace McGregor, Washington, D. C., for appellee. Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYE

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBL/\ APR 1 0 2013 Cl k, . . ` costs :£,ft,,‘;'::;:,:;‘; 3:2;'.:'::;,,,3 Fu1ton Griffith, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. t j 13 o4e7 Judge White Dist. Midd1e et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se motion construed as a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff’ s application to proceed in forma pauperis and w

JAMES R. BAKER and ) LINDA BAKER, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) and ) ) CHARLES E. HIGHTOWER, ) DIANE HIGHTOWER, MARVIN D. ) GRIFFITH, MARILYN SUE ) GRIFFITH, and THE UNKNOWN ) No. SD31205 HEIRS, DEVISEES, GRANTE

GRIFFIS, P.J., for the Court: ¶ 1. Antonio Griffith was convicted of murder for the death of Willie Newsome. In this appeal, Griffith argues that his conviction for murder, rather than manslaughter, was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. FACTS ¶ 2. On August 6, 2010, around 7:00 or 7:30 p.m., Ray Butler went to visit New-some, his brother. Newsome’s nickn

MELLOY, Circuit Judge. Police found shotgun parts in a car Appellant David Griffith was driving. A jury convicted Griffith for illegally possessing a firearm as a felon. Griffith asks us to reverse his conviction, asserting the Government did not produce sufficient evidence to show he had knowledge of the .firearm in the car. In the alternative, Griffith seeks a new trial because he

Appeal dismissed.

JUSTICE WELCH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. Under the Animal Control Act (the Act) (510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2004)), the defendant, James Griffith, cannot be construed as an “owner” of the horses. Although the primary goal of the Act is to encourage tight control of animals for the public’s protection, there must be

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of April 2008 by Plaintiff for Relief:"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."

LAMAR, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Walter Griffith, Jr. was critically injured while attempting to attach a ten-foot piece of metal conduit to an electrical pole owned by Entergy Mississippi, Inc. (“En-tergy”). Griffith later filed a complaint against Entergy, alleging grossly negligent and willful conduct and requesting compensatory and punitive damages. Th

881 N.E.2d 512 (2007) James D. GRIFFITH, Steven Cotsirilos and Robert E. Janes, Not Individually, But Derivatively on Behalf of the Wilmette Harbor Association, and Steven R. Greenberg, individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILMETTE HARBOR ASSOCIATION, INC., William Allen, R. Bruce Johnston, George W. Darrow, Larry M. Lasky, Van Allen Smith, aka. Val Smith, George Stembridge, William Pool, Todd Sm

99 P.3d 90 (2004) James ENGLISH and Linda English, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tiffany GRIFFITH, Defendant-Appellee. No. 02CA2162. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II. March 25, 2004. Certiorari Denied October 4, 2004. *92 Jean E. Dubofsky, P.C., Jean E. Dubofsky, Boulder, Colorado; Sears & Swanson, P.C., Lance

Attorney Discipline Action Per Curiam. We find that Respondent, Donald James, committed attorney misconduct by mismanaging his trust account, converting client funds, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary process. For this misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be disbarred. This matter is before the Court on the

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: A trial court imposed on James Brown a stiffer sentence than the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines recommend. But the court followed proper procedures, and the sentence was not so harsh as to be an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm Brown’s sentence against his procedural and substantive challenges. I The

CARROLL, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION (May 16, 2008) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, Plaintiff’s opposition thereto, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief, and Plaintiff’s motion to join additional defendants, as well as Defendant’s opposition thereto. The matter came on for oral argument before the Court on April 14

FAIRHURST, C.J. *236 *471 ¶ 1 Tanya Desiree James-Buhl, a teacher, was charged with failure to comply with the mandatory reporting law that requires specified professionals to report incidents of

104 P.3d 147 (2005) 209 Ariz. 416 Justin DERENDAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Hon. Deborah GRIFFITH, Judge of the Phoenix City Court, Respondent Judge, Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office, Real Party in Interest-Appellee. No. CV-04-0037-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. January 14, 2005. *148 Law Offic

747 N.E.2d 423 (2001) 319 Ill. App.3d 993 254 Ill.Dec. 383 Keith GRIFFITH and Terry Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Glen BOWER, Director of Revenue, Defendant-Appellee (Patty Redpath, in Her Own Behalf and as Natural Guardian of Her Children Joey Redpath, Jesse Redpath, and Alex Redpath; Dr. Matthew Kuhn, in His Own Behalf and as Natural Guardian of *424 His

ED CARNES, Chief Judge: James Harold Griffith was convicted by a jury of several drug and firearms offenses. After this Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Among other things, he sought an evidentiary hearing based on his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

OPINION KING, Circuit Judge: This appeal relates to whether James S. Gilmore, III, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the “Governor”), is protected by the Eleventh Amendment from suit in the underlying action — an issue the Governor failed to raise in the district court prior to this appeal. In the underlying case, the district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Virginia