Cases

960 A.2d 912 (2008) Terry L. RICKERT and Robert L. Junkins v. LATIMORE TOWNSHIP, Appellant. No. 2370 C.D. 2007. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 11, 2008. Decided November 21, 2008. *914 Guy P. Beneventano, Harrisburg, for appellant. Charles M. Suhr, Harrisburg, for appellee. BEF

960 A.2d 924 (2008) M. Everett WEISER v. LATIMORE TOWNSHIP, Appellant. No. 2369 C.D. 2007. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 11, 2008. Decided November 21, 2008. *925 Guy P. Beneventano, Harrisburg, for appellant. Charles M. Suhr, Harrisburg, for appellee. BEFORE: PELLEGRINI, Judg

OPINION BY Judge LEADBETTER. The owners of several tracts of land along “old route 15” in Latimore Township challenged the procedure of the Township’s Board of Supervisors (Supervisors) employed in enacting new zoning regulations that rezoned their tracts from Commercial-Industrial to Agricultural-Conservation and made various other text and map changes to the 1987 Ordinance. The Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) up

[Cite as State v. Latimore, 2019-Ohio-1703.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : CASE NOS. CA2018-11-209 CA2018-11-210

The appellant was transferred from Juvenile Court to the Circuit Court of Pike County, where he was found guilty of intentional murder. He was sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. Patricia Pennington testified that she was present at the Cookie Jar, a lounge, on the night of March 15, 1986. She testified that, as she was dancing, she witnessed the appellant shooting Eddie Dwayne Jones. She testified that a woman grabbed the appellant around the waist and he

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN delivered the opinion of the court: The State appeals the dismissal of an indictment charging defendants with deviate sexual assault and the issue presented is whether, under all the facts and circumstances, the five month interim between the occurrence and the indictment deprived them of due process. It appears

APPEALS COURT COMMONWEALTH vs. ERIN KIPEUM LEE Docket: 23-P-496 Dates: December 14, 2023 - September 23, 2024 Present: H

262 Ga. 448 (1992) 421 S.E.2d 281 LATIMORE v. THE STATE. S92A0870. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided October 8, 1992. Robert H. Cofer, for appellant. Dennis C. Sanders, District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, *451 P

Abrams, J. After a trial by jury in 1976, the defendant, Willie R. Latimore, was convicted of murder in the first degree. We affirmed the conviction. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 679 (1979) (hereinafter Latimore I). In 1992, the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of constitutionally erroneous jury instructions was allowed. In 1993, his motion to dismiss the indictment on the

Duffly, J. Based on events that transpired after the defendant and a companion pushed their way into an apartment where a dinner party was in progress, the defendant was charged with several offenses in the South Boston Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department. Following a jury-waived trial, the defendant was convicted on a joint venture theory of breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony,

Warner, CJ. The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of voluntary manslaughter (G. L. c. 265, § 13). On appeal, he challenges the trial judge’s denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty and argues that the instruction on consciousness of guilt was erroneous. We affirm. 1. Motion for a required finding of not guilty. The defendant first challenges the judge’s denial of his

847 A.2d 134 (2004) Jason J. and Gretchen M. WILLIAMS, Husband and Wife, Stanley L. and Mary L. Deibler, Husband and Wife, G. Lynn and Sandra L. Golden, Husband and Wife, Emory C. and Jacqueline Golden, Husband and Wife, and Glenn F. Guise v. Daniel WORLEY, Lawrence Dost, and Randall Fishell, Supervisors of the Township of Latimore, Adams County, Pennsylvania, Appellants. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

529 So.2d 181 (1988) James E. LEE v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 57003. Supreme Court of Mississippi. August 3, 1988. Robbie K. Asher, Bay St. Louis, for appellant. Edwin Lloyd Pittman and Mike Moore, Attys. Gen. by Henry C. Clay, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before HAWKINS, ROBERTSON and ZUCCARO, JJ. ZUCCARO, Justice, for the

After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a ) (1) (OUI). He was sentenced to one year of probation, with a forty-five day loss of license, and also was ordered to enroll in the program required by G. L. c. 90, § 24D. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty and

383 Mass. 507 (1981) 419 N.E.2d 1378 COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT M. Lee. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester. January 5, 1981. May 5, 1981. Present: HENNESSEY, C.J., BRAUCHER, WILKINS, LIACOS, & ABRAMS, JJ. Elliot M. Weinstein for the defendant. William E. Loughlin, Assistant District Attorney, for t

243 Ga. 491 (1979) 254 S.E.2d 822 METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al. v. WALLACE et al. 34489. Supreme Court of Georgia. Argued February 20, 1979. Decided April 4, 1979. Rehearing Denied April 17, 1979. Kutak, Rock & Huie, Terrence Lee Croft, John R. Lowery, for appellants. <

Following a mistrial in 2002, Daniels was retried in 2005 on charges of armed assault with intent to murder, mayhem, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. At trial, she moved unsuccessfully for a required finding of not guilty. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 25 (a), 378 Mass. 896 (1979). The jury later became deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Daniels moved unsuccessfully in the Superior Court to dismiss the charges, claiming that the

The defendant, Paul C. Brown, was convicted by a jury of assault and battery to collect a loan in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13C, and breaking and entering in the daytime with intent to commit a felony in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 18. On appeal, he contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of assault and battery to collect a loan and that both judgments should be vacated because the Commonwealth made improper statements dur

Sullivan, J. (dissenting). The issue before us is not whether the defendant knew his license could be suspended for a motor vehicle violation. Clearly, he did. The issue is whether the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the *171defendant had been notified, as of January 30, 2012, that his license had been suspended for forty-five days on January 11, 2012

Sikora, J. At the conclusion of a jury-waived trial, a Superior Court judge convicted the defendant of trafficking in twenty-eight to one hundred grams of “crack” cocaine, G. L. c. 94C, § 32E(¿>)(2).1 On appeal, the defendant presents two challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. He contends that the Com*443monwealth failed to prove (1