Cases

Case below, 513 Fed.Appx. 685.Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

MEMORANDUM ** California state prisoner Will Moses Palmer appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his due process claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and granting summary judgment on his excessive force claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the exhau

MEMORANDUM ** California state prisoner Will Moses Palmer appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his due process claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and granting summary judgment on his excessive force claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the exhau

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.

PER CURIAM.- | iDenied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S-Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We attach hereto and make a part hereof the District Court’s written opinion denying relator’s application. Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Simi

. McKEOWN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases is a bedrock principle of our civil justice system. Here, the district court presented Will Moses Palmer with a classic Hobson’s choice: If Palmer wished *971to present evidence through telepho

Opinion by Mr, Justice Nix, The question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to accept and mold the verdicts returned by the jury. These actions in trespass were instituted to recover for personal injuries and property damage resulting from a two-car accident which occurred on November 29, 1967, in Allegheny County. The exact scene of the coll

579 S.E.2d 901 (2003) Aria Teresa PALMER, Guardian Ad Litem for J. Carmen Fuentes, Employee-Plaintiff, v. W. Brent JACKSON d/b/a Jackson's Farming Company, Employer, and Companion Property and Casualty, Carrier, Defendants. No. COA02-1. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. May 20, 2003. *902 White & Allen, P.A., by Thomas

Dissenting Opinion by Cercone, J.: The lower court granted a mistrial on the basis that the series of verdict slips rendered by the jury made it impossible “to say with certainty that this jury has an understanding of the problems presented to it.” The court refused to grant the motion of Hurtis Moses to *279accept, record and mold the verdicts and ordered a new trial o

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2023-K-0195 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL TREMAINE MOSES * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* TFL LOVE, C.J., DISSENTS AN

206 S.W.3d 723 (2006) Xuxian NIU, Appellant, v. REVCOR MOLDED PRODUCTS COMPANY and Rob Knight, Appellees. No. 2-05-104-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. October 12, 2006. *726 Wes Dauphinot, Arlington, for appellant. Moses, Palmer & Howell, LLP, David A. Palmer, Fort Worth, for appellees. PANEL A: CAYCE

259 S.W.3d 286 (2008) Brenda GRAY, Appellant v. Maria Gloria NASH, Appellee. No. 2-07-351-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. June 19, 2008. *288 Moses, Palmer & Howell, LLP and Shayne D. Moses, David A. Palmer and Brandon J. Edmundson, Fort Worth, for Appellant. Thorne & Skinner and Michael L. Skinner, Gran

This is an appeal from a conviction for promotion of an obscene device, a dildo. The jury found appellant guilty as charged and assessed punishment at a fine of $400 and 20 days confinement. As its first ground of error, appellant alleges that the trial court improperly overruled the motion to quash the information. The information read as follows:. . . Brenda Gail Moses, hereafter styled the Defendant heretofore on or about February 6, 1980, did then and there unla

MCFADDEN, Judge. A jury found Marco Moses guilty of aggravated assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He appeals his convictions. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of a house that he and his mother owned and at which his mother lived. We agr

Kline, P.J. *61*123This case returns to us from the California Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of its opinion in *124In re Butler (2018)

231 Kan. 243 (1982) 642 P.2d 1004 STATE OF KANSAS, Petitioner, v. EARL C. MOSES, JR., Respondent. No. 53,967 Supreme Court of Kansas. Order of Public Censure filed April 3, 1982. Arthur E. Palmer, of Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds, Palmer & Wright, of Topeka, appeared on behalf of respondent. Roger Walter, attorney for th

[Cite as State v. Moses, 2014-Ohio-1748.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 13AP-816 (M.C. No. 2012 CRB 29789) v. :

EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant Florentino Meza appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for his former employer, Defendant-Appellee Intelligent Mexican Marketing, Inc. (“IMM”). Meza claims he is entitled to minimum-wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). IMM claims he falls within the FLSA

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING Upon motion for rehearing appellant accepts the disposition of grounds one and three in our original opinion. Appellant presents no new argument for ground two and his motion on that point is denied. 630 S.W.2d 337, Tex.App. Appellant has sufficiently narrowed her argument in ground four and we feel compelled to address her specific contention upon rehearing. Appellant correctly argues that Red Bluff ab

[Cite as R & J Solutions, Inc. v. Moses, 2021-Ohio-1315.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT R & J Solutions, Inc., : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 19AP-703 (C.P.C. No. 17CV-2522) v. :