Cases

Deborah L. Thorne, United States Bankruptcy Judge Introduction Cleveland L. Carr ("Carr") and Antoinette L. Lindsey ("Lindsey") are both chapter 13 debtors who have proposed plans providing that their respective attorneys, Peter Frances Geraci Law, LLC ("Geraci") and The Semrad Firm, LLC ("Semrad"), be paid before their secured auto lenders. The chapter 13 trustee, Marilyn O. Marshall, has

Miller, Judge. Following a jury trial, Marcus Antonio Lindsey was convicted of two counts of armed robbery (OCGA § 16-8-41 (a)). Lindsey appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that (1) the evidence did not support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in admitting improper identification testimony; (3) the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on identification testimony; (4) the trial court

723 S.E.2d 471 (2012) 314 Ga. App. 160 SANDS et al. v. LINDSEY. No. A11A1883. Court of Appeals of Georgia. February 16, 2012. *472 Terry R. Barnick, Adel, for appellants. Young, Thagard, Hoffman, Smith & Lawrence, James B. Thagard, Valdosta, Stephen D. Delk, Savell & Williams, Edward P. Denk

Borrello, J. *598 In this automobile-negligence action, plaintiffs, Lindsey Patrick and Christian Patrick, 1 appeal as of right the trial court's order granting defendant Virginia Turkelson's motion for summary disposition pursuan

639 S.E.2d 584 (2006) LINDSEY v. The STATE. No. A06A1402. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 30, 2006. *586 David E. Clark, Jessica R. Towne, Clark & Towne, P.C., Lawrenceville, for appellant. Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, Lisa A. Jones, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. ELLINGTON, Judge.

920 N.E.2d 515 (2009) U.S. BANK, a Corporation, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Willie Taylor, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Harold LINDSEY and Carmichael Leasing Company, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. No. 1-07-2606. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division. December 7, 2009. *519 Shimon B. Kahan

*647McMlLLIAN, Judge, dissenting. Because the majority conflates the burden of proof in reviewing a defendant’s motion for summary judgment and in so doing, ignores pertinent and on point case law, I must respectfully dissent. As an initial matter, even if we assume for purposes of summary judgment that issues of fact exist as to wheth

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AMY J. ST. EVE, United States District Court Judge On September 8, 2015, Plaintiff James Miller (“Miller”) filed the present Second Amended Complaint alleging violations of *752the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1, et seq. (“IMWL

17 So.3d 778 (2009) Brian MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 5D08-1294. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. August 7, 2009. Rehearing Denied September 24, 2009. William R. Ponall, and Michael J. Snure, of Kirkconnell, Lindsey, Snure and Yates, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellant.

[Cite as State v. Lindsey, 2025-Ohio-1464.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114514 v. : RAYSHAWN LINDSEY, JR.,

[Cite as Lindsey v. Lindsey, 2019-Ohio-4923.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO CHRISTINE LINDSEY, : OPINION Plaintiff-Appellant/ : Cross-Appellee, CASE NOS. 2019-G-0201 : 2019-G-020

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: This appeal arises out of a civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) against defendants Samuel Wyly and Charles Wyly, Jr. (the ‘Wyly Brothers”). After a jury found the Wyly Brothers liable for multiple claims of securities fraud,' the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Shi

Miller, Judge. L. W. appeals from the termination of her parental rights in her children, R. W. (girl age 12) and W. W. (boy age 16). On appeal L. W. argues that the court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence of her parental misconduct or inability and erred in finding that the termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children. L. W. further contends that the court erred in admitting certain

588 S.E.2d 831 (2003) 263 Ga. App. 649 RECEIVABLES PURCHASING COMPANY, INC. v. R & R DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC. No. A03A1577. Court of Appeals of Georgia. October 16, 2003. Stephanie R. Lindsey, Decatur, for appellant. Smith, Shaw & Maddox, Preston W. Smith, Thomas H. Manning, Rome, for appellee. RUFFIN, Presiding Judge.

[Cite as Village of Evendale v. Lindsey, 2018-Ohio-2311.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO VILLAGE OF EVENDALE, OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-170455 TRIAL NO. 17CRB-9976 Plaintiff-Appellant, : vs. : O P I N I

Reese, Judge. *425In this grandparent visitation case, John Mitchell Reid, Jr., the father of D.R., a 12-year-old boy, appeals from the trial court's order granting visitation with D.R. to Reid's mother, Vickie Lindsey. Reid contends that the trial court's findings of fact were not supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the court erre

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 11, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D24-0417 Lower Tribunal No. 23-26299-CA-01 ________________ Sarah Steinmetz, Appellant,

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0273p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ SENATOR JONATHAN LINDSEY; SENATOR JAMES │ RUNESTAD; REPRESENTATIVE J

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-2169 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. BERNARD LINDSEY, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Chief Judge. Before the Court is an appeal and petition for writ of mandamus by Dow Corning; its shareholders, The Dow Chemical Company and Corning Incorporated; and other manufacturers of silicone products that have been named as co-defendants with Dow Corning in product liability suits relating to silicone implants.1 These parties contest the district court’s denial of their