Cases

ORDER OF REMAND GARY P. SULLIVAN, Chief Justice. A PETITION FOR REVIEW having been filed by Rosalie Owens, biological mother of the subject minors herein, by and through her counsel, Sally K. Hickok, Esq., from an Order issued by The Honorable John Christian, on December 16, 1999, and good cause appearing therefor, the said Petition was granted on February 3, 2000'. A briefing schedule was issued on the s

NAHMIAS, Justice. Appellant Margie Owens was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of malice murder, felony murder based on aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, all in connection with the shooting death of her husband, Randall Owens. In June 1998, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve life in prison for felony murder and a consecutive term of five years on the

ORDER AND REASONS JANE TRICHE MILAZZO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Defendants Stephen Sullivan; Sullivan Stolier, A Partnership; Sullivan Stolier and Resor, A Professional Law Corporation; Sullivan Stolier Knight, L.C.; Michael Schulze; Jefferson .LTAC, L.L.C.; and James Fritschen’s (for purposes of this Motion the “Moving Defendants”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 213). F

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. *30 This is a case about a double life, an attempted uxoricide, and excellent police work. Defendant-Appellant Gregory Owens ("Owens") was convicted of interstate domestic violence in violation of

Melton, Justice. Following a jury trial, Marian Papacsi Owens appeals her conviction for the felony murder of Tommy Janes, contending, among other things, that her right to proceed pro se was violated and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. 1 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. Kevin Owens, an inmate who challenged in the trial court four disciplinary reports, appeals the order dismissing in part and denying in part his petition for writ of mandamus. Because only the trial court’s denials of claims on the merits are being challenged, we treat the appeal as a petition invoking this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction and deny the petition on the merits without further discussion. See T

219 S.W.3d 867 (2007) Michael Ray OWENS, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Linda Kay OWENS, Respondent-Appellant. No. 27618. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two. April 30, 2007. *869 Richard L. Schnake, Neale & Newman, L.L.P., Springfield, for appellant. John R. Lightner, Mark J. Millsap, J. Matthew Mill

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ - MOTIONS TO DISMISS Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana Presently pending before the Court are: (1) a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defen*1013dants Sheriff Robert J. Downey (“Sheriff Downey”), in his individual capacity, Deputy Brian K. Gabehart (“Deputy Gabe-hart”), in

ROBERT A. CHAISSON, Judge. 12In this appeal, defendant, Jamar Owens, asserts that his criminal convictions should be reversed and a new trial granted based on improper prosecutorial rebuttal argument and the improper admission of recorded telephone calls from the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center. For the reasons that follow, we find no merit to defendant’s arguments. Accordingly, we affirm his convictions and sentences; h

JUSTICE HART delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶ 1 We accepted jurisdiction in this original proceeding to consider The Colorado Independent's contention that the Arapahoe County District Court erred in refusing to grant public access to certain records maintained under seal in a capital murder case. The Colorado Independent contends that the federal and state constitutions grant a p

MANION, Circuit Judge. The six cases consolidated on appeal all involve claims related to asbestos exposure over thirty years ago at a single Marsh-field, Wisconsin plant which produced fire doors.1 While complex on the surface, and involving bulky appendices and appeals of separate orders, the thrust of the appeal is quite simple: the claims at issue are covered by the exclusive remedy provisions

Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge: The court originally heard this appeal during the 2016-17 term. See 864 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2017). In the resulting order we certified to the D.C. Court of Appeals the following question regarding the plaintiffs' inten

OPINION COLE, Chief Judge. Carnell Matthews.and Christopher Owens filed a complaint seeking to set aside the forfeiture of $56,970 by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Because Matthews and Owens have no right to relief under the relevant statute, we affirm. I. On May 23, 2013, Ohio S

OPINION JANE BLAND, Justice. A jury convicted Shane Owens of driving while intoxicated. The trial court assessed punishment at thirty days’ confinement and imposed a $1,500 fine. On appeal, Owens contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his blood test results. He asserts that (1) under the Fourth Amendment, he had a reasonabl

OPINION AND ORDER STEPHEN L. CROCKER, Magistrate Judge On December 29, 1996, Oswald “Ozzie” Suoja died from mesothelioma, a form of cancer closely associated with asbestos exposure. There is no dispute that exposure to asbestos caused Suoja’s illness: he had a 40-year career as a union asbestos worker during which he worked with numerous asbestos-containing products. In 1999, Suo-ja’s wife filed this l

GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge: Table of Contents I. Background 762 A. The FSIA Terrorism Exception 763 B. History of this Litigation 765 II. Extrajudicial Killings 769 A, Textual Arguments 770 1. State action requirements under in

679 F.3d 101 (2012) Patricia WRIGHT; Kevin West, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants v. OWENS CORNING. No. 11-2026. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued November 17, 2011. Opinion Filed: May 18, 2012. *102 Jason T. Baker, Esquire, Michael A. McShane, Esquire, Aud

WENTWORTH, J. This case asks the Court to determine whether the Indiana Board of Tax Review erred when it held that for the 2006 tax year, Housing Partnerships, Inc. failed to show that its rental properties qualified for the charitable purposes exemption provided in Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-16. The Court affirms the Indiana Board’s holding. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Housing Partners

672 F.3d 966 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Dwayne OWENS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-13118. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. February 27, 2012. *967 Patricia Vanessa Kemp, Fed. Pub. Def., Montgomery, AL, Michael John Petersen, Fed. Pub. Def., Petersen Law Office, Millbrook, A

1 So.3d 405 (2009) Raymond OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 2D07-5565. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. February 11, 2009. James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Matthew D. Bernstein, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistan