Cases

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT WILLIAM M. DAVIS, Trustee of the ) Restatement of the Bill D. Davis and ) Judith E. Davis Joint Revocable Trust ) Agreement dated January 27, 1993, ) ) WD84125 Respondent, ) v.

Karen R. Baker, Justice, concurring. Because Davis has received the specific information he sought in his FOIA request, I would hold this appeal moot and dismiss the matter. Therefore, I concur. Hart, J., joins.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: *883Charles Raby, a death row inmate, seeks a certificate of appealability ("COA") to challenge the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion. Finding no extraordinary circumstances warranting Rule 60(b)(6) relief, we decline the request. I. In 1994, Raby was c

Malcolm J. Howard, Senior United States District Judge This matter is before the court on defendants' motion for summary judgment, [DE # 64]. Plaintiff has responded, [DE # 87]. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to exclude expert witness, [DE # 86], to which defendants have responded, [DE # 88]. Plaintiff additionally filed a response to defendants' Statement of Material Facts, [DE # 89], to which defendants responded with a motion

LaROSE, Chief Judge. Jerome James Davis appeals his final judgment and sentences. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We reverse and remand for a new trial because the trial court failed to conduct adequate Nelson 1 and Faretta

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge Plaintiff Jerrold Davis (“Plaintiff’), an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”), alleges that Defendants, officials at Stateville and the Illinois Department of Corrections, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual prison conditions. Second Am. Compl. [22]. On August 3, 2016,

MEMORANDUM OPINION James C. Cacheris, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Petitioner Jason Michael Contreras (“Petitioner” or “Contreras”) originally filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with this Court on June 25, 2013. [Dkt. 1.] In the petition, Contreras alleges that he is being held in state custody in violation of his federal constitutional rights, based on Mil

NAHMIAS, Justice. Appellant Sean Ohifemi Davis challenges his convictions for felony murder and first-degree child cruelty in connection with the death of his girlfriend’s 13-month-old daughter, Nila Faye Flagler. As explained below, we reject Appellant’s contention that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, and we affirm his conviction and sentence for felony murde

John A. Gibney, Jr., United States District Judge This case arises from the cyberbullying of a student-run feminist organization at the University of Mary Washington ("UMW"). The cyberbullying occurred primarily through a social media smartphone application called Yik Yak. Yik Yak allowed users to anonymously share messages-called "yaks"-with other users within a certain radius (e.g., with users at or around UMW). Other users could

MEMORANDUM RULING S. MAURICE HICKS, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are the United States of America’s (“the Government”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 32) and Defendants S.P. Davis, Sr. (“Davis”), Andrew Davis, Jr., and Wilhe J. Singleton’s (“Singleton”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 33). Because the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material f

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER DETERMINING CONTESTED MATTERS J. Philip Klingeberger, Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court Two interrelated contested matters are the subject of this Memorandum of Decision and Order. The first arises from the Chapter 7 Trustee Stacia L. Yoon’s (“Trustee”) Record Number 39 objection to the claim of exemption of the debtor Annie P. Davis (“Davis”) with respect t

Spearman, A.C.J. ¶1 Repossession agent Robin Davis and two codefendants, while repossessing two cars owned by the same family, forced the driver and a passenger of one of the cars to get out at gunpoint and take them to the second car. Davis was convicted of two counts of kidnapping in the second degree and two counts of assault in the second degree. On appeal, he claims (1) the assault merged with the kidnapping for each victim

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darlene J. Davis appeals various pretrial orders and the district court’s final order denying relief on her complaint filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (2012). We

MCFADDEN, Judge, concurring fully and specially. I fully concur in the majority opinion. I agree that the holding in Mister v. State, 286 Ga. 303, 309 (8) (687 SE2d 471) (2009), appears to prohibit us from reaching the issue of whether Davis’s sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. And I accede to the majority’s decision not to address sua sponte the question whether Mister is

MARY R. RUSSELL, Chief Justice. Homeowners appeal from the trial court’s judgment dismissing their claim against Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and CitiMortgage under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), section 407.020, 1 for an alleged wrongful foreclosure of a deed of trust. The trial

ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Senior District Judge. Plaintiff Michael Davis sues defendant Hollins Law, A Professional Corporation, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (“FDCPA”) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1788-1788.33 (“Rosenthal Act”). The gravamen of plaintiffs complaint is that defendant placed

*1269MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS TED STEWART, District Judge. This mattér is before the Court on Defendant Davis County Towing Association’s (“DCTA”) Motion to Dismiss1 and Defendant Davis County’s (the “County”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.2 As discussed more

138 F.3d 754 124 Ed. Law Rep. 840, 7 A.D. Cases 1614,12 NDLR P 83 Mary DAVIS, Individually and as next friend for a minorShane Davis; Bobby D. Davis, Individually and asnext friend for a minor Shane Davis,Plaintiffs--Appellants,v.FRANCIS HOWELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; Roger Russell; VickyStewart; Joan Powlishta, Defendants--Appellees. No. 97-2379.

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants on the 5th of May 20 16 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is "All

HAYNES, Circuit Judge: The principal question before the district court was whether the employers’ pension benefit plan in this case is a “governmental plan” within the meaning of section 3(32) the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32). The Plaintiffs-Appellants (the “Plaintiffs,” collectively) are approximately forty former employees of N