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.
15 opinions for “John William Smart and BRANDIE MARIE SMART”
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 27, 2015 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSHUA R. STARNER AND CAITLYN METZ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County Nos. 41200170, 41200189 Michael R. Jones, Judge No. M2014-01690-CCA-R3-CD – Filed April 20, 2016 A Montgomery County jury convicted Defendant Joshua R. Starner of aggravated child abuse,
ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV
ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV
ACCEPTED 14-15-00991-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
Christa Gail Pike v. State of Tennesseepublic domain
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE (Heard at Jackson) April 14, 2010 Session CHRISTA GAIL PIKE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 68280 Mary Beth Leibowitz, Judge No. E2009-00016-CCA-R3-PD - Filed April 25, 2011 The Petitioner, Christa Gail Pike, appeals as of right the judgmen
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Odempublic domain
929 S.W.2d 513 (1996) WAL-MART STORES, INC., and Maria Inez Saenz, Appellants, v. Brandy ODEM, Appellee. No. 04-94-00693-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. August 21, 1996. Rehearing Overruled September 16, 1996. *517 J. Preston Wrotenbery, Magenheim, Bateman, Robinson, Wrotenbery & Helfond, Houston,
ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/23/2
FILED 15-0547 7/24/2015 5:49:28 PM tex-6223072 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK
State of Louisiana v. Lamondre Tuckerpublic domain
CLARK, Justice. * | TThis is a direct appeal under La. Const, art. V, § 5(D) by the defendant Lamondre-Tucker. 1 In November 2008, a Caddo Parish grand jury indicted the defendant for the first degree murder of Tavia Sills, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.' After a
Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Abshirepublic domain
OPINION David Puryear, Justice In three separate lawsuits, several hundred individuals sued Asplundh Tree Expert Co. (“Asplundh”) seeking damages stemming from the devastating 2011 Bas-trop County Complex Fire. In response, Asplundh filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the suits were untimely because they were filed past the two-year statute of limitations. After convening a hearing on the moti
Floyd v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION 556 *554II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................557 III. APPLICABLE LAW.....................................................563 A. Monell Liability..........................
in the Interest of K.I.B.C., a Childpublic domain
ACCEPTED 14-15-00882-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/28/2015 8:14:08 PM CHRISTOPHER
People v. McCraneypublic domain
After the opening of the case by the .district attorney, the first witness called was Mrs. Elizabeth 8helman, who testified: I reside in Oneonta; am married; know defendant and the family of Mr. MeCraney; I sat up with Huldah Ann MeCraney the Wednesday night before she died; sat up alone; defendant and the family retired about nine; was alone during the night only when defendant got up; she got up as often, I should think, as onc
Fish v. Weatherwaxpublic domain
Benson, J. delivered the opinion of the court. There may he a judgment, for the insufficiency of the declaration or plea, as the case may be, against the party, though there may be a verdict for him. If the party for whom a verdict is found, will not move for judgment, the other party may pray for judgment against himself; but the entry on the record will still be as if the judgment had been on the prayer of the party for whom
United States v. Burrpublic domain
MARSHALL, Chief Justice, remarked that it was not in the power of the marshal to summon more than twenty-four, as the act of assembly authorized1 only that number. If he should summon twenty-five, the last would not have power to act; and the marshal would have no power to displace any one of the others, to put-the last in his place. When the panel had been completed by the marshal, its deficiencies co