Cases

63 S.W.3d 485 (2001) The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Jesse Harold MAULDIN, Johnny Howard Mauldin, Lawrence Alfonse Bullette and Chris Young, Appellees. Nos. 12-00-00094-CR to 12-00-00097-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler. June 20, 2001. Rehearing Overruled August 6, 2001. Discretionary Review Refused November 21, 2001.

874 S.W.2d 692 (1993) Jesse Harold MAULDIN, Johnny H. Mauldin, Chris Young, Lawrence Bullette & Larry Thomas, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Nos. 12-90-00216-CR, 12-90-00217-CR, 12-90-218-CR and 12-90-00194-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler. December 31, 1993. *693 Gerald H. Goldstein, San Antonio, Clifton L.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge: This case has led a long and active life. The district court originally dismissed the case on statute of limitations grounds, 586 F.Supp. 1563 (N.D.Ala.1984), and a panel of this Court reversed. 763 F.2d 1250 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1105, 106 S.Ct. 893, 88 L.Ed.2d 926 (1986). The district court then granted summary judgment to defendants, 634 F.Supp. 1520 (N.D.Ala.1986), and

52 B.R. 838 (1985) In re Douglas C. MAULDIN and Sally D. Mauldin, d/b/a Delta Arms Sporting Goods. Douglas C. MAULDIN and Sally D. Mauldin, Plaintiffs, v. PEOPLES BANK OF INDIANOLA, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. E85-40001, Adv. No. 85-4041. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Mississippi. September 11, 1985. *839 Ralph E. Chapma

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC BY THE COURT: A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing in banc and a majority of the judges of this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing in banc, IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court in banc with

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: I. I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I would reach that result by way of a different route. The majority holds that the defendants in this case are immune from damages, and therefore does not reach the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. I would find it unnecessary even to reach the immunity question. In my opinion, the def

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge: This case involves an appeal by the plaintiff from an order denying his motion for partial summary judgment and another order granting the defendants’ motion for *1438summary judgment. We affirm the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment but reverse its order granting summary judgment in favor of the defen

634 F.Supp. 1520 (1986) Samuel JONES, Jr., Plaintiff, v. PREUIT & MAULDIN, a partnership, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 84-AR-5131-NW. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northwestern Division. May 23, 1986. Addendum May 28, 1986. *1521 C.V. Stelzenmuller, F.A. Flowers, III, Thomas, Taliaferro, Form

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan May 27, 2014 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice 148707

586 F.Supp. 1563 (1984) Samuel JONES, Jr., Plaintiff, v. PREUIT & MAULDIN, etc., et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 84-AR-5131-NW. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northwestern Division. June 15, 1984. *1564 C.V. Stelzenmuller, Thomas, Taliaferro, Forman, Burr & Murray, Birmingham, Ala., Harold L. Speake, Speake,

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a declaratory judgment requiring the plaintiff Guy Parker to indemnify the defendants. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded. The present action is based upon a former action, Parker v.Sutton, 47 Ala. App. 352, 254 So.2d 425 (1971), cert. den.287 Ala. 738, 254 So.2d 431

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge: On February 24, 1984, Samuel Jones filed suit against Preuit & Mauldin, a partnership engaged in the business of servicing equipment. The complaint alleged that on April 8, 1982, the defendants, acting pursuant to ALA.CODE § 35-11-111 (1975), obtained writs of attachment for three International Harvester cotton pickers belonging to Jones. The sherif

89 F.Supp.2d 1371 (2000) James M. MAULDIN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. James BURNETTE, et al., Defendants. No. 5:98-CV-355-1 (WDO). United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division. March 30, 2000. *1372 *1373 Bruce Robert Millar, Lee Sexton, J. Stevens Mixon, Jonesboro, GA, for James Marshal

DOWNIE, Judge. ¶ 1 Julie Young appeals the dismissal of her breach of contract action against Jason and Jordan Rose (collectively, “the Roses”).1 The superior court ruled that Young’s real estate employment agreement with the Roses was unenforceable because she did not sign it. We agree that Young was statutorily required to sign the agreement and that it is unenforceable without her signature. W

USCA11 Case: 20-13822 Date Filed: 05/10/2022 Page: 1 of 38 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-13822 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD TAI YOUNG MOON, JR.,

647 F.Supp. 891 (1986) Jack B. MAULDIN and wife Sue Mauldin; James Haskell Todd; J.W. Cobb; Mrs. Doris Herrington and Mrs. Dorothy Gray Martin, Plaintiffs, v. Dick MOLPUS, Secretary of State of Mississippi; Jones County Board of Education; Johnny Morris, Gary Stapes, Jerry Sherman, R.L. Caves and Audic McCormick, Members of the Jones County Board of Education, Defendants. Civ. A. No. H86-0204(R). Unite

876 F.2d 1480 Samuel JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.PREUIT & MAULDIN, a partnership composed of E.F. Mauldin,individually, and E.F. Mauldin as Executor or Administratorof the Estate of Leonard Preuit, Deceased; E.F. Mauldin;E.F. Mauldin, as Executor or Administrator of the Estate ofLeonard Preuit, deceased; and Preuit Mauldin, Defendants-Appellees. No. 86-7415. Unit

833 F.2d 1436 Samuel JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.PREUIT & MAULDIN, a partnership composed of E.F. Mauldin,individually, and E.F. Mauldin as Executor or Administratorof the Estate of Leonard Preuit, Deceased; E.F. Mauldin;E.F. Mauldin as Executor or Administrator of the Estate ofLeonard Preuit, Deceased; and Preuit Mauldin, Defendants-Appellees. No. 86-7415-1. Uni

The appellant, John Will Young, appeals from his convictions for robbery in the first degree, a violation of § 13A-8-41(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975, and theft of property in the third degree, a violation of § 13A-8-5, Ala. Code 1975. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 years' imprisonment on the robbery conviction, and 1 year's imprisonment on the theft conviction. I. The appellant argue

167 Ga. App. 789 (1983) 307 S.E.2d 689 MAULDIN v. THE STATE. 66148. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided September 8, 1983. Murphy C. Miller, for appellant. Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Robert E. Statham III, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. POPE, Judge. Marshall John Mauldin appeals his co