Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Jewel S McDonald”
Byrd v. McDonaldpublic domain
LOCKEMY, J.: In this action for partition and the determination of heirs, Wilkins Byrd (Wilkins), Kay Larsen, John Klettner, Laura Bynum, Ann Crump, Robert Larsen, Joan Gary, John Stanton, Charles Stanton, Byrd Thompson, and unknown persons claiming an interest in the subject real property (collectively, Appellants) appeal the circuit court’s affirmance of the probate court’s decision to order the public sale of real propert
Jewel Christian v. Timothy McDonaldpublic domain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2003-IA-01848-SCT JEWEL CHRISTIAN d/b/a ABC, JEWEL CHRISTIAN AND CHARLES E. MAGEE v. TIMOTHY McDONALD AND JOHN E. CURRIE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/18/2003 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT G. EVANS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SMITH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: SHELLY G. BURNS ATTORN
Johnny Jerome Edwards v. Nancy Jewel Pierce Edwardspublic domain
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-CA-01346-COA JOHNNY JEROME EDWARDS APPELLANT v. NANCY JEWEL PIERCE EDWARDS APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/24/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KENNETH M. BURNS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLAN
v. McDonaldpublic domain
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
Killeen v. McDonald's Corp.public domain
Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge In this putative class action, plaintiff sues McDonald's Corporation and one of *1013its franchisees claiming that they violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ISCS 505/2 ("ICFA"), and unlawfully enriched themselves, by deceptively advertising and marketing
Jewel v. National Security Agencypublic domain
AMENDED ORDER JEFFREY S. WHITE, United States District Judge. In response to the parties’ request for clarification, the Court issues this amended order. This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Carolyn Jewel, Tash Hepting, Young Boon Hicks, Erik Knutzen and Joice Walton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Jewel Campbell v. Ethel C. Taylorpublic domain
PER CURIAM. In ease no. 1110057, Jewel Campbell, Acie A. Campbell, William J. Campbell, Jr., Roy J. Campbell, Eva Campbell, William C. Campbell, Kelly Calvert, and Amanda Givens (“the plaintiffs”) appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Ethel C. Taylor, Paula Buettner, Gladys A. Campbell, Jason Bennett, and Mendi1 Bennett (“the defendants”) in this dispute stemming from a judgment entered in 200
Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc.public domain
Memorandum Opinion and Order GARY FEINERMAN, District Judge. In 2009, when Plaintiff Michael Jordan was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, Third-Party Defendant Time Inc. published a Sports Illustrated Presents commemorative issue devoted to celebrating his career. Doc. 77-1 at 2-3. Time asked numerous businesses, including Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff J
Jewel v. Unimprovident Corp.public domain
McDonald, J. The Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED for the following reasons: Using Mass.R-Civ.P. 23(a) as a framework but with G.L.c. 93A, §9(2) as the determinative standard, I find that although there is a certain similarity of situation and injury among and between the proposed class and named plaintiffs, there are also significant differences. Most significant among such differences are facts underlyin
Jeffery Andre McDonald v. the State of Texaspublic domain
Order filed, July 27, 2022. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-22-00331-CR ____________ JEFFERY ANDRE MCDONALD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 232nd District Court
Jeffery Andre McDonald v. the State of Texaspublic domain
Order filed October 4, 2022 In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-22-00331-CR ____________ JEFFERY ANDRE MCDONALD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 232nd District Court
Jeffery Andre McDonald v. the State of Texaspublic domain
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 29, 2023. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-22-00331-CR JEFFERY ANDRE MCDONALD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No
McDonald v. Statepublic domain
George Rose Smith, Justice. This is a postconviction petition under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. In 1967 the appellant McDonald was charged with first degree murder in the shooting of a Little Rock police officer. McDonald, represented by three retained attorneys, entered a negotiated plea of guilty, the prosecutor having waived the death penalty. A jury, empaneled pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2152 (Rep
Christian v. McDonaldpublic domain
¶ 1. In this damage action for personal injuries sustained in a multiple vehicle accident, we granted permission to bring this interlocutory appeal to review the circuit *Page 287 court's order denying a transfer of venue. Because the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law bars plaintiff's claim against the venue-fixing defendant who was plaintiff's fellow employee, we conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion in denyin
McDonald v. General Mills, Inc.public domain
387 F.Supp. 24 (1974) Ellizabeth G. McDONALD, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. No. S-2553. United States District Court, E. D. California. January 21, 1974. Motion to Reconsider December 5, 1974. *25
McDonald v. Floor Masterspublic domain
*********** The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award, based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Glenn and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of
Andersen v. Succession of Bergeronpublic domain
CALLOWAY, J.,1 dissenting. hit is my opinion that RLB did not have the authority to act alone to transfer immovable property from the LLC to himself without first obtaining the approval of the majority of the members in each class, as well as a majority of the classes of the members. As La. R.S. 12:1318(B)(2) states, in pertinent part, “[ujnless otherwise provided in the articles
Ghobadi Pasha v. U.S. Department of Statepublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEHRNOUSH GHOBADI PASHI, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 23-1546 v. Judge Beryl A. Howell U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pla
Nyman v. McDonaldpublic domain
966 P.2d 1210 (1998) Tage M. NYMAN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. R. Daryl McDONALD, Defendant and Appellant. No. 971692-CA. Court of Appeals of Utah. October 16, 1998. Jay R. Mohlman and Scott M. Ellsworth, Nielsen & Senior, Salt Lake City, for Appellant. David K. Smith, Midvale, for Appellee. Before BENCH, BILLINGS and ORME, JJ. OPIN
ITT Fluid Products Corp. v. Crane Co.public domain
McDONALD, Judge. The question on appeal is whether the vendor/retailer may recoup the payment of a sales tax from the vendee/consumer after the contract has been performed. ITT Fluid Products Corporation f/d/b/a Grinnell Corporation (ITT) sold to Crane Company (Crane) machinery and equipment by contract dated August 12, 1985. Provision for the payment of sales tax pursuant to KRS 139.2001