Cases

174 Ga. App. 606 (1985) 330 S.E.2d 807 PRICE v. HITCHCOCK. 70074. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided April 18, 1985. M. Stan Ballew, Craig Alan Webster, for appellant. Jesse W. Walters, W. Earl McCall, for appellee. DEEN, Presiding Judge. Appellant Nona Price brought a malpractice action against appellee H

Deen, Presiding Judge. Appellants bring this appeal of the successful challenge by appellee, plaintiff below, of the statutory presumption of survivorship, Ga. Code Ann. § 56-2426, in the deaths of an insured and her primary and contingent beneficiaries in a common accident. Appellants enumerate four errors: (1) the court erred in denying appellants’ motions for a directed verdict, which were based on alleged absence of the

PER CURIAM. This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a sentence of death under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The underlying facts of this case were described in this Court's opinion on

PER CURIAM. This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. The order concerns postconviction relief from a capital conviction for which a sentence of death was imposed, and this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal under articl

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC12-1040 ____________ JESSE GUARDADO, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [October 8, 2015] C

410 N.W.2d 101 (1987) 226 Neb. 146 In re Application A-15738 of the HITCHCOCK AND RED WILLOW IRRIGATION DISTRICT et al. HITCHCOCK AND RED WILLOW IRRIGATION DISTRICT et al., Appellants, v. LOWER PLATTE NORTH NATURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT et al., Appellees. No. 86-008. Supreme Court of Nebraska. July 31, 1987. *10

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC12-1040 ____________ JESSE GUARDADO, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [October 8, 2015]

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

WOODSON, J. — This is an original proceeding by mandamus, instituted in this court by the relator, seeking to compel the respondents, the judges of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, to apportion or redistriet said city into six senatorial districts as is required to be done under certain' conditions, by section 7, article 4 of the Constitution of 1875. A petition for an alternative writ of mandamus wa

205 U.S. 80 (1907) UNITED STATES ex rel. WEST v. HITCHCOCK. No. 194. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 30, 1907. Decided March 4, 1907. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Mr. William H. Robeson and Mr. Samuel A. Putman, with whom Mr. William C. Shelley was on the brief, for plaintiff in error

Mr. Justice Duell delivered the opinion of the Court: At the outset it is insisted by appellant that this court on the former appeal decided that the duties of the Secretary of the Interior in this ease, as shown by the petition for the writ, were purely ministerial. We do not so understand it. A demurrer having been interposed, the court held that the conceded facts were those stated in the relator’s petition

Mr. Justice Morris delivered the opinion of the Court: We are unable to see what part the fact of the citizenship of' the relator performs in the present case. He might well be a citizen, with all the rights and privileges of citizens, and yet be disqualified from the exercise of absolute ownership over certain specified property. If it be conceded that among the rights of citizenship is that of freely acquirin

Grates, J. The Alpena Lumber Company is a domestic corporation which was organized for manufacturing purposes under our general law, in the year 1874. It recovered a judgment in the circuit court for Alpena county against Richardson & Go. for about a thousand dollars and the judgment was affirmed in this court at the January term for 1879: 40 Mich. 203. During the pendency of that suit the corpora

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 19-NOV-2021 07:49 AM Dkt. 75 SO

ACCEPTED 04-14-00807-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/19/2015 3:55:18

On motion of F. Aaron Negangard, Chief Deputy Attorney General of the State of Indiana, and Cathleen M. Shrader, President of the State Board of Law Examiners, both members of the Bar of this Court, each applicant named in Exhibit A is by Order of this Court now duly sworn and admitted to practice as an attorney at law, and their respective names are ordered entered upon the Roll of Attorneys of this Court in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Cou

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 81 OPINION This is a survival action alleging a premises liability claim. The trial court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction finding that the plaintiff lacked standing. We affirm. Background Facts On August 30, 2002, Mattie Armes tripp

McLeese, Associate Judge: The three orders at issue in these cases ■arise from the efforts of intervenor Vision McMillan Partners, LLC (VMP) to obtain approval to develop a twenty-five-acre parcel of land located on the McMillan Reservoir and Filtration Complex. In the first order, the Zoning Commission approved VMP’s application for a planned unit development (PUD) on the sit

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge WARDLAW OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: This appeal tests the limits of federal court jurisdiction to hear a habeas petition brought under the Indian Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303, where the underlying claim arises not from an actual detention or imprisonment, but instead from a tribe’s temporary exclusion of its own

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT L. WILKINS, United States District Judge Presently before the Court are the following motions: (1) “Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), To Set Aside/Vacate Judgment and Request for Post-Judgment Leave to Amend Claims Under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. [§ ] 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Renewin