Cases

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEITH GIBSON, § § No. 111, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2107000514A/B

65 Cal.Rptr.3d 790 (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 113 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raymond FOSS, Defendant and Appellant. No. C050992. Court of Appeal of California, Third District. September 13, 2007. *792 Carol A. Navone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA US DOMINION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-0445 (CJN) MYPILLOW, INC., et al., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, v. SMARTMATIC USA CORP., et al., Third-Party Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Lindell and MyPillow assert vario

SELYA, Circuit Judge. *11This case implicates a plethora of issues arising in the shadow of the First Amendment. Most notably, it requires us to address the power of a court to impose a prior restraint in the form of a permanent injunction forbidding the publication of words-words that the court believes have been used to defame the plaintiff in

FIFTH DIVISION September 10, 2010 No. 1-07-0266 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County, Illinois.

935 N.E.2d 663 (2010) The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laquita CALHOUN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 1-07-0266. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division. September 10, 2010. *665 Michael Pelletier, Patricia Unsinn, and Lauren M. Bauser, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago IL,

908 N.E.2d 1104 (2009) The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeanette DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 1-06-3514. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division. May 15, 2009. *1105 Patricia Unsinn, Deputy Defender, and Aliza R. Kaliski, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of State Appellate D

COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge. Michael D. Carey brought this suit against Mt. Desert Island Hospital (“MDI”) for gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of *34the Civil - Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and the Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 4551-4632. He alleged that he was discharged from his position as Vice-President of Finance becaus

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 97-1661 MICHAEL D. CAREY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellant, v. MT. DESERT ISLAND HOSPITAL, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. No. 97-1688 MICHAEL D. CAREY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Cross-Appellees, v. MT. DESERT ISLAND HOSPITAL, ET AL.,

USCA1 Opinion United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 97-1661 MICHAEL D. CAREY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellant, v. MT. DESERT ISLAND HOSPITAL, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. No. 97-1688 <

23 P.3d 1046 (2001) 143 Wash.2d 561 The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Dwayne Anthony WOODS, Appellant. No. 65585-5. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued March 22, 2000. Decided May 24, 2001. *1053 Paul J. Wasson, II, Spokane, Lenell Rae Nussbaum, Seattle, for Appellant. <

661 F.Supp. 825 (1987) CHAMPION PARTS REBUILDERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CORMIER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. 86 C 8906. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. April 9, 1987. Preliminary Injunction Order May 26, 1987. As Amended June 1, 1987. Randall L. Mitchell, Peter V. Baugher, Paul E. Lehner, Phillip Fertik, Adam

The majority have reached the conclusion that it is the duty of this court to restore the legal presumption of innocence to a man who, in the lower court, confessed, before court and jury and all other persons present at the trial, that he committed the brutal murder with which he is charged. I can find nothing in the record, or in our rules of law or procedure, or in the majority opinion, that convinces me that it is my duty to participate in such an act. On the other hand, I find many thing

Hudson, J. These twelve actions, by consent heard together before three referees, come up on defendants’ exceptions to acceptances of their reports. The exceptions are practically *391identical except that in the two Maccabees cases additional errors are claimed. The suits were brought to recover upon life insurance policies and benefit certificates on account of the all