Cases

MANGERSON, J. ¶ 1. Ronald Fouts appeals an order dismissing his complaint against the Breezy Point Condominium Association and awarding the Association statutory attorney fees. He asserts that, as a director of the Association, he is entitled to review confidential communications between the Association and its attorney regardless of a claim of attorney-client privilege. We conclude the circuit court, in a well-reasoned decision,

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE KIMBERLY L. BALL, ) No. ED109532 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Charles County vs. )

JJ\ 'ff\). ... ,. try ,~, Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ~I From Smith County ~ Ex Parte: KIMBERLY CARGILL (Name of ,A.pplicant) 241stoistn

FORST, J. Appellant Dravien Jones appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle during a traffic stop. Consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rodriguez v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015), we agree with Appellant that the search occurred during an illegal detention. We'therefore rever

JABAR, J. [¶ 1] Thanks But No Tank and several individuals (collectively, TBNT) appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Mills, J.) affirming the decision of the Department of Environmental Protection to grant DCP Midstream Partners, LP, a permit to construct a liquefied petroleum gas terminal in Searsport. See 5

OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Anthony Cockroft, appeals from an entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas which re-sentenced defendant following the Supreme Court of Ohio's remand of his original sentence pursuant to State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856. {¶ 2} Resolution of defendant's as

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DAVID WEINGRAD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-0446 [September 27, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court fo

650 S.E.2d 401 (2007) GONZALES v. The STATE. No. A07A1354. Court of Appeals of Georgia. July 26, 2007. *404 Glynn Richard Stepp, for Appellant. Daniel J. Porter, Dist. Atty., Kimberly Ann Gallant, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee. BLACKBURN, Presiding Judge. Following a jury trial, Lawrence Gonzales was convic

OPINION BOLGER, Justice.. I. INTRODUCTION A group of Lake and Peninsula Borough voters filed suit against two local elected officials, alleging various violations of state and local conflict of interest laws and the common law conflict of interest doctrine. The elected officials moved for summary judgment on the ground that the voters fail

OPINION {¶ 1} Michael Withers, defendant-appellant, appeals judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, in which the court resentenced appellant to a term of imprisonment upon remand. {¶ 2} In two separate cases, appellant pled guilty to two counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor and four counts of rape. The charges arose from appellant's sexual activities with his minor

OPINION {¶ 1} This is an appeal by defendant-appellant, Robert Harris ("appellant"), from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, following a jury trial in which appellant was found guilty of one count of aggravated burglary and two counts of robbery. {¶ 2} On February 15, 2006, appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated burglary, in violation of R.C.

MEMORANDUM Bredar, District Judge. On May 31, 2017, Plaintiffs O. John Ben-isek, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Rule 65(a) Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and to Advance and Consolidate the Trial on the Merits or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 177.) The State responded on June 30, 2017, with a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 186.) Both motions have been briefed. O

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 601 U. S. Part 1 Pages 100–123 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT March 4, 2024 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

James E. Bailey v. City of Annapolis, et al., No. 2311, September Term, 2019. Opinion by Adkins, Sally D., J. IMMUNITY—PUBLIC OFFICIAL IMMUNITY—DISCRETIONARY VERSUS MINISTERIAL DUTIES: Police officers are entitled to common law public official immunity for discretionary acts done without malice. When an officer acts on the obedience of orders without any room for personal judgment or discretion, the action is ministerial, and thus not protected by public official immunity. Here, a police offic

OPINION BAKER, Judge. Appellant-defendant Steven Wright appeals from his convictions for Neglect of a Dependent,1 a class B felony, and Battery,2 a class B felony, and from the sentence imposed for those offenses. Specifically, Wright contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) the trial court did not properly b

378 So.2d 588 (1979) In re Franklin D. DeROSIER, Applying for Adoption, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlton Lynn DEAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 7312. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. December 19, 1979. *589 Steven Broussard, Lake Charles, for defendant-appellant. Clanton & Johnson, John W. Johnson, Eunice, for p

404 S.E.2d 723 (1991) Kimberly KELLY, Appellant, v. FIRST VIRGINIA BANK-SOUTHWEST, et al., Appellees. No. 901144. Supreme Court of Virginia. April 19, 1991. D. Tillar, Long & Long, Blacksburg, for Kimberly Kelly. G.C. Hancock-Gilmer & Sadler, Pulaski, T.T. Lawson, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, Roanoke, for First Virginia Bank. Present: All th

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Tyler Refrigeration Corporation (Tyler) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding invalid Patent Nos. 4,144,720 (the ’720 patent), 4,207,747 (the ’747 patent) and 4,283,922 (the ’922 patent) (collectively called “the Subera patents”) 1 and find

629 F.Supp. 1425 (1986) L. COHEN & COMPANY, INC. v. DUN & BRADSTREET, INC. Civ. No. H-85-686(JAC). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. February 24, 1986. *1426 John Andrew Kissel, Enfield, Conn., for plaintiff. Eric Luckingbeal, Hartford, Conn., for defendant. RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

HARRELL, Judge. These two cases, Fried v. Archer, No. 84, September Term, 2001, and Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County, No. 83, September Term, 2001, share a common issue: whether local government emergency telephone system employees (specifically operators, dispatchers, and managers) owe an individual tort duty to persons in need of their services, and, if so,