Cases

570 F.3d 165 (2009) RICHMOND MEDICAL CENTER FOR WOMEN; William G. Fitzhugh, M.D., on behalf of themselves, their staffs, and their patients, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Michael N. HERRING, in his official capacity as Commonwealth Attorney for the City of Richmond; Wade A. Kizer, in his official capacity as Commonwealth Attorney for the County of Henrico, Defendants-Appellants. Horatio R. Storer Foundation, Incorporated; Robert G. Marshall, Virgi

116 P.3d 873 (2005) 339 Or. 54 MARSHALL'S TOWING and Marshall Jennings, Petitioners on Review, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, Respondent on Review. (DSP 3011, 3018, 3058; CA A122558; SC S51803). Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc. Argued and Submitted June 21, 2005. Decided July 21, 2005. Charles F. Lee, of Lee & Kaser, P.C

OPINION JOHNSON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., and PRICE, WOMACK, KEASLER, HERVEY, COCHRAN, and ALCALA, JJ., joined. Appellant was 16 years old when he was arrested for, and charged with, aggravated robbery. Because he was a juvenile,

*905OPINION HAMILTON, Circuit Judge: Robert G. Marshall and Patrick M. McSweeney (the plaintiffs) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). We conclude the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Case: 24-30222 Document: 119-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED January 23, 2025

NO. 07-08-0499-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D DECEMBER 7, 2009 ______________________________ EARNEST LEE MA

NO. 07-08-0499-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D DECEMBER 7, 2009 ______________________________ EARNEST LEE MARSHALL,

[Cite as State v. Marshall, 2024-Ohio-4445.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2023-10-079 : OPINION - vs - 9/9

[Cite as State v. Marshall, 2024-Ohio-688.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2023-03-036 : OPINION - vs -

Case: 13-12834 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-12834 ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22230-DLG MARSHALL LEE GORE,

FAY, Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs, customers of the Marshall County Gas District, allege claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution arising out of the distribution of bond proceeds by the defendant gas district. The trial court dismissed the claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to s

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* JOHN C. PORFILIO, Circuit Judge. La’Ron Marshall, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his amended application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm. Mr. Marshall was charged with assault on prison staff and with refusing to obey an order. A disciplinary he

The issue in this case involved whether the Marshall County Gas District unlawfully distributed $6 million to the cities of Albertville, Arab, and Guntersville. The plaintiff class claims that the gas district failed to follow the provisions of §11-50-411, Ala. Code 1975, in making the distribution. The trial judge entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm. The member cities argue that before the distribution of the $6 m

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

OPINION & ORDERALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge *676Petitioner John Marshall moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter and amend the Court's June 20, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Dkt. No. 37. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to alter and amend the judgment is deni

Kenneth M. Hoyt, United States District Judge On this day came to be considered the plaintiffs', Maite Marshall and Dylan Marshall, response to the defendant, Ben Russell's Objections to the Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 68). Having considered the facts, the law, and the argument of counsel, the Court DENIES the Objections and SUSTAINS the Report and Recommendation of this Court to de

GARY W. LYNCH, P.J. Eddie Lee Marshall (“Defendant”) appeals his first-degree-murder conviction, see section 565.020,1 for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Defendant presents five points on appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in (1) excluding a taped telephone conversation between Defendant and his sisters, as well as not granting a m

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-3859 ___________ Chrystell H. Fackrell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court

678 F.3d 1149 (2012) Otis Lee RODGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 10-55816. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted January 12, 2012. Filed May 17, 2012. *1151 John Ward (argued), San Francisco, CA, for petitioner-appellant Otis Lee Rodgers

BLACK, Judge. William Crescenzo challenges the order dismissing his quiet title complaint and directing that the clerk of the circuit court close the case and “no longer accept any filings.” Mr. Crescenzo raises two issues on appeal, both of which necessitate reversal. In his lawsuit, Mr. Crescenzo sought to quiet title to six properties he had acquired