Cases

BROWN, Judge. [1] Royce Love appeals his convictions for mistreatment of a law enforcement animal and resisting law enforcement as class A misdemeanors. Love raises two issues, which we revise and restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions.1 We reverse. Facts and Procedural History [2] At around 4:00 a.m. on August 4, 20

WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., C.J./P.J. On August 19, 2012, Warren Love (“Love”) was issued a uniform citation charging him with the class B misdemean- or of animal neglect in violation of section 578.009. 1 The state of Missouri (“State”) later filed an amended information charging Love with the class A misdemeanor of anima

OPINION VIGIL, Justice. This appeal concerns whether defendant professional corporations and a limited liability company are “health care providers” as defined by the Medical Malpractice Act (“MMA” or “the Act”), NMSA 1978, Sections 41-5-1 to -29 (1976, as amended through 2008), so as to be able to receive the benefits

OPINION CASTILLO, Chief Judge. {1} In these consolidated cases, we must determine if Defendants are health care providers as defined in the New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), NMSA 1978, Sections 41-5-1 to -29 (1976, as amended through 2008). The MMA defines “health care provider” as “a person, corporation, organization, facility[,] or institution licensed or cert

MAX N. TOBIAS, JR., Judge. hThe defendant, Patsy Ford Baker (“Baker”), argues in her appeal that her guilty plea, and subsequent sentence, to the charge of looting should be reversed because the state took beyond the period of time allowed to bring its case against her to trial, thus violating La.C.Cr.P. art. 578. The state argues in response that Baker’s conviction and sentence should be affirmed because the applicable time

88 S.W.3d 511 (2002) STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gary A. LOVE, Appellant. No. 24526. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One. September 30, 2002. Motion for Rehearing or Transfer Denied October 22, 2002. *513 Michael Baker, Springfield, for appellant. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty.

550 S.E.2d 549 (2001) William Alan LOVE, Guardian Ad Litem for Christine Amelia Love, and David Alexander Love, minors; Sharon Elsie Love and husband, William Alan Love, Plaintiffs, v. Clarence SINGLETON and Janice Marie Singleton, Defendants. No. COA00-631. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. August 7, 2001. DeVore, Acton & Stafford, P.A., by Fred W. DeVore, II

OPINION BAKER, Judge. Appellant-defendant William Love, Sr. appeals his conviction for Battery,1 a Class B misdemeanor. Specifically, Love argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay which did not qualify as an excited utterance. Moreover, Love contends that without this inadmissible hearsay, there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Cou

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRYCE M. BAKER, § § No. 433, 2023 Petitioner Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File No. CN22-04227 SIE

FILED Feb 23, 2022 10:26 AM(CT) TENNESSEE WORKERS' COMPENSATION

[Cite as State v. Love, 2023-Ohio-3690.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2022-P-0069 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas AARON A. LOVE,

147 F.3d 383 G. Scott LOVE, Paul S. Bergeron, Kathleen B. Balhoff, andBennie Baker Bourgeois, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Mike FOSTER, State of Louisiana, Governor; Fox McKeithen,State of Louisiana, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-30436. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. July 16, 1998.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. AP-77,085 KRISTOPHER LOVE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. F15-76400-W IN THE 363RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DALLAS COUNTY KEEL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimou

490 S.E.2d 88 (1997) 268 Ga. 484 LOVE v. The STATE. No. S97A1117. Supreme Court of Georgia. September 22, 1997. Reconsideration Denied October 10, 1997. *89 Alden W. Snead, Decatur, for appellant. John T. Morgan, III, District Attorney, Barbara B. Conroy, Assistant District Attorney

522 U.S. 67 (1997) FOSTER, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, et al. v. LOVE et al. No. 96-670. United States Supreme Court. Argued October 6, 1997. Decided December 2, 1997. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT *68 Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Part

100 F.3d 413 G. Scott LOVE, Paul S. Bergeron, Kathleen B. Balhoff, and Bennie Baker-Bourgeois, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Michael J. FOSTER, Jr. Governor of State of Louisiana, and Fox McKeithen, Secretary of State of Louisiana, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-30429 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit November 15, 1996.

90 F.3d 1026 65 USLW 2128 G. Scott LOVE, Paul S. Bergeron, Kathleen B. Balhoff, andBennie Baker-Bourgeois, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Michael J. FOSTER, Jr., Governor of State of Louisiana, andFox McKeithen, Secretary of State of Louisiana,Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-30429. United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. July

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: Appellants, four Louisiana voters, appeal from the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs’ suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds that Louisiana’s method of conducting congressional elections violates the Constitution and laws of the United States. We reverse. I. In August

DENNIS, Circuit Judge, with whom POLITZ, Chief Judge, and SMITH, Circuit Judge, join, dissenting from failure to grant rehearing en banc. I respectfully dissent from the court’s failure to grant rehearing en banc because (1) the panel majority erroneously declared a state statute preempted by a federal law due to its failure to correctly apply the- controlling Supreme Court precedents r