Cases

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JENNIFER HILL, ON BEHALF NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO OF HERSELF AND ALL FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED SITUATED, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 1D14-0539 THE HOOVER COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSI

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 613 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-23-700 Opinion Delivered December 11, 2024 APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY JENNIFER LEIGH HILL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANT

McMillian, Judge. Jennifer Hill filed this qui tam action to recover damages and civil penalties on behalf of the State of Georgia under the Georgia False Medicaid Claims Act, OCGA § 49-4-168, et seq. (the "GFMCA"), and for damages under the GFMCA and the Georgia Whistleblower Act, OCGA § 45-1-4 (the "Whistleblower Act"), for what she claims was retaliation against her. This appeal mark

Altice, Judge. Case Summary [1] Casey L. Hill appeals his conviction for Level 6 felony intimidation. On appeal, he contends that the trial court admitted evidence of his subsequent bad acts in violation of Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). [2] We affirm. Facts & Procedural History [3] Hill began a relationship with Jennifer Malott i

Vaidik, Chief Judge. *630 [1] Jennifer Schooler was convicted of murder and Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent for killing her boyfriend's three-year-old son and failing to seek medical treatment for him, and the trial court sentenced her to maximum and consecutive sentences. Schooler now

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Kevin G. Young, J.), entered December 3, 2008 in a divorce action. The judgment awarded counsel fees to defendant. It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed in the interest of justice and on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for a hearing in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plai

McMillian, Judge. *297 Jennifer Hill appeals from the trial court's order dismissing her appeal for failure to timely file a transcript for inclusion in the record on appeal. Because we find that Hill had no obligation to file a transcript, we reverse. Hill filed a qui t

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT STEPHAN P. MICKLE, Senior District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes for consideration upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum in Support (doc. 86) (“Motion to Dismiss”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to sta

ORDER Claimant appeared pro se. Ronald R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of West Virginia. This claim was submitted to the Court for decision upon a Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties. The Court concludes that the claimant is entitled to recover a scholarship that she received from Davis and Elkins College i

Opinion issued March 31, 2022 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00310-CV ——————————— JASON RITENOUR, Appellant V. CENTRECOURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; ASSOC

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 16a0273p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ JENNIFER MASON, et al., ┐ Plaintiffs-Appellees, │

OPINION GLENN A. NORTON, J. Anthony K. Hill appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of two counts of first-degree statutory rape, one count of second-degree statutory rape, three counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, one count of second-degree statutory sodomy, and one count of first-degree child molestation. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND

714 S.E.2d 385 (2011) 310 Ga. App. 799 HILL v. CLARKE. No. A11A0369. Court of Appeals of Georgia. July 13, 2011. *386 John R. Monroe, for appellant. Jennifer Brooke Savage, Karen Gilpin Thomas, Lawrenceville, Michael V. Stephens II, for appellee. MILLER, Presiding Judge. Clifford Hill

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, concurring. I agree with my colleagues’ conclusion that Hill can proceed with his claims under the Fourth Amendment. This enables him to recover damages for any improper entry, force, or threats the agents employed. It also makes it unnecessary for us to discuss his Fifth Amendment theories. If he were seeking compensation for his incarceration, then we would have a difference be

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of April 2017 by Petitioner 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 17th of August 2017."

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Jennifer Heglund and her husband Jamie Heglund sued numerous Minnesota cities and counties, state officials, and hundreds of John and Jane Does, alleging that police officers had improperly accessed their private information in the State’s driver’s license database. The Heglunds later amended their complaint to replace one of the John Does with Frank Sch

PETTIGREW, J. | sDefendants challenge the trial court’s judgment, granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs and intervenor and denying their exceptions raising the objections of no cause of action, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, prematurity, and improper cumulation. For the reasons that follow, we amend the trial court’s September 10, 2014 judgment and affirm as amended. Wé also deny defendants’ applic

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge. | T This is the latest in a series of appeals involving the guardianship of Kristin Kuelbs, an incapacitated adult.1 In this appeal, Kristin’s brother and sister-in-law, appellants Donald and Edwardena Hill, challenge several orders entered by the Garland County Circuit Court between March 5, 2009, and April 9, 2009, including an order that appointe

STRANCH, Circuit Judge. For the second time in less than twelve months, we find ourselves confronted with Michigan's statutory scheme for resentencing individuals who were convicted of first-degree murder and received mandatory sentences of life without parole for acts they committed as children. The present incarnation of this dispute, now approaching its eighth year, concerns a statut

SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE Plaintiffs have sued Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging as unconstitutional a broad swath of Indiana's statutory and regulatory restrictions on providing and obtaining abortions. Dkt. 1. Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.