Cases

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Apr 15 2016, 8:25 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. This is a contempt proceeding arising out of an action under the antitrust laws brought by Imageware, Inc., and others against U.S. West Communications, Inc., and others. For a description of the underlying case, in which the defendants, whom we shall call U.S. West, prevailed, see Mostly Media, Inc. v. U.S. West Co

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: California prisoner Richard Louis Arnold Phillips appeals the district court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We conclude that Phillips has asserted a colorable claim that the combined prejudicial effect -of his counsel’s ineffective assistance, and the State’s presenta

PYLE, Judge. Statement of the Case [1] This appeal involves a dispute over a triangular parcel of farm land (“the triangular parcel”), measuring 1.786 acres. This triangular parcel is located in between parcels of land owned by Appellee-Plaintiff, Margo Liebner (“Liebner”), and Appellants-Defendants, William Arnold Henry (“Henry”) and Mary Ann Henry (“Ma

[Cite as In re J.S.R., 2022-Ohio-482.] COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IN THE MATTER OF : : JUDGES: J.S.R (7-11-2013) : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. MINOR CHILD : Hon. John W. Wise, J. :

2026 IL App (1st) 232350 No. 1-23-2350 Opinion filed March 27, 2026 FIFTH DIVISION IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

522 F.3d 640 (2008) Billy S. JEFFRIES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James L. MORGAN, in his official capacity as Warden of the Northpoint Training Center, Respondent-Appellee. No. 06-5726. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: February 5, 2008. Decided and Filed: April 14, 2008. ARGUED: Timothy G. Arnold, Department of Public Advocacy,

429 F.Supp.2d 868 (2006) Billy Stewart JEFFRIES, Petitioner v. James L. MORGAN, Warden, Respondent. Civil Action No. 05-CV-66. United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Frankfort. May 2, 2006. *869 *870 Timothy G. Arnold, Frankfort, KY, for Petitioner. Louis F. Mathias, Jr., Office o

482 S.E.2d 34 (1997) Jerry M. BRAFFORD, Sr., Employee-Plaintiff, v. BRAFFORD'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Employer-Defendant, and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Carrier-Defendant. No. COA96-469. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. March 18, 1997. *35 Cecil R. Jenkins, Jr., Kannapolis, for plaintiff-appellee. Hedrick, Eatman

ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Motion by Plaintiff United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) for Summary Judgment (DE 149) and Counter-Motion by Defendants Harold Edward Martin, Jr. (“Martin”) and Fred Jager (“Jager”) (collectively, “Defendants Jager and Martin”) for Summary J

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: Wallace Bonner is an Alabama prisoner seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons stated below, we REVERSE and direct that the writ be issued on remand. Bonner was charged with theft of property in the second degree for shoplifting several

OPINION AND ORDER DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for final disposition of the issues presented during a bench trial held from February 26, 2014 through February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2014. Plaintiff United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission *1321(“CFTC”) alleges that Defendants

KYLE, Circuit Judge. In 1996 and 1997, the First National Bank of Omaha (the Bank) and Three Dimension Systems Products, Inc. (3D) entered into a series of written agreements by which. 3D was to develop, customize, and deliver to the Bank three software computer programs intended for the use of the Bank’s affiliates, subsidiaries and clients. Two of the programs, known as PPS an

The right to search as an incident to the arrest does not extend to any place other than the precise room in which the person is arrested. The officers have no right to search any part of the premises except the room where the arrest is made. (People v. Woodward, 220 Mich. 511, 190 N.W. 721; People v.Conway, 225 Mich. 152, 195 N.W. 679</

438 S.E.2d 427 (1994) Jana L. CAMALIER, Administratrix C.T.A. of The Estate of Caleb Willard Camalier, Corrie R. Camalier by and through her duly Appointed Guardian Ad Litem, G. Bryan Collins, Jr., Louise H. Camalier, by and through her duly Appointed Guardian Ad Litem, G. Bryan Collins, Jr., and Jana L. Camalier, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. Charles J. JEFFRIES, Frank A. Daniels, Jr., and The News and Observer Publishing Co., Defendants.

443 A.2d 1318 (1982) Thomas ARNOLD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 80-1077. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued October 15, 1981.[*] Decided March 31, 1982. *1319 Robert Mark Greenspan, Baltimore, Md., appointed by this court, for appellant. John R. Fisher, Asst. U. S. Atty

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT M. DOW, JR., District Judge. This matter is before the Court on two motions to dismiss [60, 63], one filed by Defendant Mary Davolt and one filed by Defendants Lewis Mark Spangler, Arthur P. Sundry, Jr., Michael A. Sykes, Frank Maly, Dolores Ritter, Beverly Harvey, Michael Rees, Norman Beles, and Leonard Eichas.1 For the reasons set forth be

Appellant-defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree. The alleged victim was the defendant's wife. This is an appeal from a second trial. The jury in the first trial convicted the defendant for murder in the second degree and fixed his punishment at ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The Supreme Court of Alabama, the transferee of the case, reversed and remanded. Arnold v. State, 291 Ala. 149,279 So.2d 130

723 F.2d 486 Robert MELCHIOR, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Arnold R. JAGO, Respondent-Appellee. No. 80-3500. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. Argued Oct. 11, 1982.Decided Dec. 15, 1983. Robert Melchior, pro se. Edward F. Marek, Federal Public Defender (court-appointed), D

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision) The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential pur