Cases

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 50834 JEAN WILMA MACE, through GINGER ) COLLINS, her Attorney-in-Fact, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) DEBORAH LYNN LUTHER and ) RAYM

JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge: Louise Harris, an Alabama inmate, appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. Harris was convicted for arranging the murder of her husband, Montgomery County Deputy Sheriff Isaiah Harris, and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Following unsuccessful challenges to her convictio

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 1, 2005 Session KEITH EDWARD GARRETT, v. PRISCILLA LOUISE GARRETT, et al., ESTATE OF LUTHER GASTON GARRETT Appeal from the Chancery Court for Fentress County No. P-96-15 Hon. Billy Joe White, Chancellor No. M2002-03106-COA-R3-CV - Filed May 27, 2005 In this second appeal of t

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 28, 2014 Session PHYLLIS LOUISE BIGE v. CITY OF ETOWAH Appeal from the Circuit Court for McMinn County No. 2013-CV-200 J. Michael Sharp, Judge No. 2014-00271-COA-R3-CV-FILED-DECEMBER 4, 2014 Phyllis Louise Bige, a former police officer with the City of Etowah, brought this retaliatory d

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 2, 2000 Session IN RE: THE ESTATE OF LUTHER GASTON GARRETT Appeal from the Chancery Court for Fentress County No. P-96-15 Billy Joe White, Chancellor No. M1999-01282-COA-R3-CV - Filed October 12, 2001 The testator, a father of six, left a will which devised to one of his c

OPINION AND ORDER RAKOFF, District Judge.1 Jury deliberation is currently underway in the above-captioned case, in which plaintiff Evonne Davis sues defendants Philip Morris USA, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company for injuries that allegedly resulted from defendants’ tortious conduct. The Court presumes familiarity with the expansive record and procedural histor

CRAVEN, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a decision of the district court adjudicating, inter alia, the respective interests of appellant and appellees 1 in Moorefield Farm, approximately one hundred and twenty four acres of land in Fairfax County, Virginia. We relate below only the facts found

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2023-CA-01132-COA MELCHESTER PHILLIPS JR., SARAH PHILLIPS, APPELLANTS KEITH PHILLIPS, NIKKI HOBSON, GAIL CAMPER, CAROLYN MOJGANI, CARLOS WILBORN, CHRISTOPHER WILBORN, KIM WILBORN, MICHAEL WATTS, MARK WATTS, TRACY WILBORN, EDDIE YOUNG III, CHERYL YOUNG, CAROL SUTTON, LYNETTE MYERS, KEVIN SMITH, MARY SMITH, MORRIS LOUISVILLE, SHANINA BRIDGES, NATASHA SMITH, BRIAN SMITH,

681 F.3d 232 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. Jeffrey PRUETT; Louisiana Land & Water Company; LWC Management Company, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants. No. 11-30572. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 15, 2012. *236 Josette Louise Cassiere, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Earl M. Campbe

WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶ 1. Marsha P. Nelson appeals the November 22, 2016 judgment and the December 9, 2016 "qualifying court order" 1 of the Chancery Court of Harrison County. Finding no error in the chancery court's ruling after a review of the record, we affirm. FACT

627 F.Supp.2d 609 (2008) Warren T. EDGE, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Defendant. No. 7:07-CV-51-FL. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division. June 12, 2008. *610 George L. Fitzgerald, Charlotte, NC, for Plaintiff. Charlene P. Bellinger-Honig, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, fo

Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court

199 Va. 35 (1957) ERWIN P. PEAL v. ROBERT L. LUTHER, ET AL. Record No. 4662. Supreme Court of Virginia. April 26, 1957. Robert Cantor (Cantor, McMullan & Cantor, on brief), for the appellant. L. A. Belcher (Elmore & Belcher, on brief), for the appellees. Present, Hudgins, C.J., and Eggleston, Buchanan, Miller, Whittle and Snead, 1.

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1468 NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP; ROSANELL EATON; EMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH; BETHEL A. BAPTIST CHURCH; COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; BARBEE’S CHAPEL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.; ARMENTA EATON; CAROLYN COLEMAN; JOCELYN FERGUSON-KELLY; FAITH JACKSON; MARY PERRY, MARIA TERESA UNGER PALMER,

Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr

PER CURIAM. *695 This appeal and cross appeal arise out of two actions brought to the trial court, which were consolidated for trial, stemming from a property dispute between adjoining landowners in Canterbury. In the first action, Luther E. Thurlow, Anthony Denning, and Steven Pelletier (T

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge: The plaintiffs in this case filed suit against U.S. Bank N.A., Wilmington Trust, *869N.A., and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company on behalf of a putative class, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendant banks owned certain

MOORE, J. The owners of a mineral servitude, the Worleys, appeal a judgment on the merits that found the servitude prescribed for nonuse and awarded ownership of the minerals to the surface owners, the Magees and the Talleys.1 Finding no manifest error, we affirm. Factual Background In 1958, the Worleys’ ancestor in title sold a 176.6-acre tract in D

ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge. This case comes before the court on several evidentiary motions filed by the parties to this dispute. Plaintiffs SMD Software, Inc. (“SMD”), and SiteLink Software, LLC (“SiteLink”) have filed motions to exclude the testimony and reports of defendants’ proffered experts Tom Litton (“Litton”) and Dr. Carson Bays (“Bays”) (DE 179, 183). Likewise defendants EMove, Inc

LEVINSON, Justice. These consolidated appeals oblige us to revisit Hawai'i Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984), Hawai'i Housing Authority v. Lyman, 68 Haw. 56, 704 P.2d 888 (1985), and Takabuki v. Housing Finance and Development Corp., 72 Haw. 466, 822 P.2d 955 (1991), in order to address the question whether the Hawai'i Land Reform Act, Hawai'i Revised S