Cases

Opinion BENKE, Acting P. J. A jury convicted defendants and appellants Leopoldo Chavez and Edward Elias of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) 1 and found true the special circumstances of robbery murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17))

75 Cal.Rptr.3d 413 (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43 Frank CHAVEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NETFLIX, INC., Defendant and Respondent; Laura Ellis, Objector and Appellant. Frank Chavez, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Netflix, Inc., Defendant and Respondent; David Meininger et al., Objectors and Appellants. Frank Chavez, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Netflix, Inc., Defendant and Respondent; John Vogel

214 P.3d 397 (2009) Alejandro CHAVEZ; Sonja Elison; Judy Leiken; Thomas W. Ryan, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Janice K. BREWER, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arizona; Lenora Johnson, in her official capacity as Recorder for Apache County; Apache County; Candace D. Owens, in her official capacity as Recorder for Coconino County; Coconino County; Linda Haught Ortega, in her official capacity as Recorder for Gila Count

494 F.3d 1266 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CHAVEZ-CALDERON, a/k/a Pedro Acosta-Pinela, Defendant-Appellant. No. 06-2313. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. July 30, 2007. *1267 Jerry A. Walz, Walz and Associates, Cedar Crest, NM, for Defendant-Appellant. David N. Williams, (Davi

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Gilbert Herrera and Louis John Chavez of conspiring to traffic cocaine. During the trial, and over the objections of Herrera and Chavez, the district court allowed a federal law enforcement agent to testify to the presence of Chavez’s truck at the scene of two alleged drug exchanges. That portion of the agent’s testimony was not based

134 Cal.Rptr.2d 54 (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643 68 P.3d 347 In re Esteban Noe CHAVEZ, On Habeas Corpus. No. S099172. Supreme Court of California. May 15, 2003. *56 David K. Rankin, San Diego, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Petitioner Esteban Noe Chavez. Bill Lockyer, Attorney G

47 Cal.4th 970 (2010) 224 P.3d 41 ROBERT CHAVEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. S162313. Supreme Court of California. January 14, 2010. *975 Law Office of Rochelle Evans Jackson, Rochelle Evans Jackson; Law Office of Melinda G. Wilson and Melinda G.

OPINION Eddie Carrillo appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights to E.M.E. for failure to support the child. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and render judgment. FACTUAL SUMMARY Dora Elkabachi1 and Eddie Carrillo divorced on August 24, 2001. Elkabachi was appointed sole managing conservator of E.M.E., and Carrillo was ordered to

Filed 9/22/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B307951 (Super. Ct. No. PA093925) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County) v. DYLAN W. CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant. Appellant Dylan W. Chavez challenges the sufficiency o

PER CURIAM. In this workers’ compensation proceeding, Petitioner/Claimant requests .certiora-ri review of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) granting the Employer/Carrier’s (E/C’s) motion to coha-pel her to attend a functional capacity evaluation (FCE). Because we conclude that the order departs from the essential requirements of law and would cause harm that c

607 F.Supp. 484 (1985) Ana M. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, v. GUARANTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 84-Z-1473. United States District Court, D. Colorado. April 16, 1985. Daniel R. Satriana, Jr., Hall & Evans, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff. Laura Ann Wing, Rothgerber, Appel & Powers, Denver, Colo., for defendant.

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § IN RE: No. 08-19-00047-CV § VERONICA CHAVEZ VARA, AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING § Relator.

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER ON MOTION Cause number: 01-16-00860-CR Style: Miguel C. Chavez v. The State of Texas Date motion filed*: May 31, 2017 Type of motion: Unopposed Third Motion for Thirty (30) Day Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief Party filing motion: Appellant’s c

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS JESUS FERNANDO CHAVEZ, § No. 08-16-00084-CR Appellant, § Appeal from the v. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER STEPHAN M. VIDMAR, United States Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs First Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. 69] (“Motion”), filed on August 13, 2014. Defendants filed their Response [Doc. 79] on September 4, 2014 (“Response”). Plaintiff filed his Reply [Doc. 80] on September 9, 2014 (“Reply”). Plaintiff filed supplemental exhibits on Sept

246 P.3d 1219 (2011) 2011 UT App 17 STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Laura Veronica CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant. No. 20100810-CA. Court of Appeals of Utah. January 21, 2011. German T. Flores, Orem, for Appellant. Mark L. Shurtleff and Marian Decker, Salt Lake City, for Appellee. Before Judges DAVIS, McHUGH, and THOR

MEMORANDUM ** Gumildo Gutierrez Chavez and Laura Elena Delgadillo seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by de

FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE ANNA SHAMAYA JUAREZ,

MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDREWS, District Judge. In these consolidated cases, Plaintiffs brought causes of action against numerous defendants for injuries stemming from alleged misuse of dibromochloropropane *440(“DBCP”) on banana plantations in Panama, Ecuador, Guatemala and/or Costa Rica. Plaintiffs filed their claims against the same Defen

Opinion McINTYRE, J. In this case, a lender mailed a homeowner a loan modification agreement under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The homeowner signed, returned and performed under the loan modification agreement. The lender, however, never mailed the homeowner a signed copy of the loan modification agreement. We conclude the homeowner suffic