Cases

Branch, Judge. On appeal from his conviction for child molestation, Antonio Sanchez argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury charge on sexual battery as a lesser included offense. We find no error and affirm. “On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, with the defendant no longer enjoying a presumption of innocenc

THIRD DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MARKLE and PADGETT, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules September 8

14 S.W.3d 353 (2000) Gary Leroy WEIDNER and Liberty Cab Company, Inc., Appellants, v. Matilde S. SANCHEZ, Appellee. No. 14-98-00078-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). February 17, 2000. Rehearing Overruled March 23, 2000. *359 Maurice L. Bresenhan, Jr., Pascal Paul Piazza, Houston, for appellant

Opinion NEEDHAM, Guarantee Forklift, Inc. (GFL), appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant Capacity of Texas, Inc. (Capacity), on GFL’s statutory claim for the termination of a vehicle franchise without good cause in violation of Vehicle Code sections 11713.3, 3060, 3061 and 3066. 1

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-CV-0540 LEOPOLDO SANCHEZ, et al., APPELLANTS, v. SUNDELY LLC, e

JOHN C. PORFILIO, Circuit Judge. In 1986, the Supreme Court first construed amended § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), Pub.L. No. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973—1973o, to conclude several North Carolina legislative districts impaired the opportunity of black voters “to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1421 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Maurice Bellafonta Cathey Defendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 20-1519 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee

Opinion PERREN, J. For over a decade, Powerhouse Motorsports Group, Inc. (Powerhouse), operated a successful retail motorcycle dealership under a dealer/franchise agreement (Franchise Agreement) with Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (Yamaha). In 2008, Powerhouse suffered a reversal of fortune and its owner Timothy Pilg closed the dealership in June of that

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 19a0204p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LOGAN VANDERHOEF, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ │

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas OPINION No. 04-18-00707-CR Burdane Maurice GRANGER, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas,

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 1364 CA 15-00057 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. MAURICE MCMILLIAN AND TEARTHA MCMILLIAN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MIMEUX M. BURDEN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, JAMES E. GRANT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND BLONDELL BURDEN, DEFENDANT. ---------------------------------------- MIMEUX M. BURDEN, P

861 F.Supp. 1516 (1994) Jennie SANCHEZ, Adeline Sanchez, and Debra Casanova, Plaintiffs, v. The STATE OF COLORADO and Natalie Meyer, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Colorado, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 93-S-0963. United States District Court, D. Colorado. August 31, 1994. *1517

730 P.2d 328 (1986) Georgene SANCHEZ, Rocco Bomareto, Jr., and R&D Enterprises, Inc., Petitioners, v. STATE of Colorado and Natalie Meyer, as Secretary of State, Respondents. No. 84SC449. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. December 22, 1986. Rehearing Denied January 20, 1987. Eugene Deikman, P.C., Craig Murdock, Denver, for petitioner Sanchez.<

REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed August 8, 2019. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00823-CR WILLIE MAURICE HERVEY, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

572 P.2d 545 (1977) 91 N.M. 198 Thomas G. KEIDERLING, Francis Griego, Merced Anzures, Roger Ramirez, Willie D. Smith, Petitioners, v. Hon. Maurice SANCHEZ and Hon. Joseph F. Baca, Respondents. Nos. 11518, 11519, 11631, 11679 and 11683. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 14, 1977. Jan A. Hartke, Chief Public Defender, Janice Hensolt-Ellis,

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-13-00230-CR ________________________ MAURICE MONTAIL THOMPSON, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A

564 P.2d 1326 (1977) 90 N.M. 444 The CITY OF SANTA FE, a Municipal Corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Benito VELARDE et al., Defendants-Appellants. The CITY OF SANTA FE, A Municipal Corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray Victor ARMIJO et al., and Jose Benito Velarde, Defendants-Appellants.

USCA11 Case: 23-12038 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026 Page: 1 of 29 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-12038 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

565 P.2d 337 (1977) 90 N.M. 466 Mary Ann BOONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Danny L. BOONE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 11088. Supreme Court of New Mexico. June 6, 1977. Harry L. Patton, Clovis, for petitioner-appellant. Dan B. Buzzard, Clovis, for respondent-appellee. OPINION MAURICE SANCHEZ, District Judge. T

[1] This is a consolidated action for judicial review pursuant to §24-4-106, C.R.S. (1982 Repl. Vol. 10). It is brought to review the defendant secretary of state's action, as the licensing authority, in revoking the four plaintiffs' wholesale and manufacturer's fireworks licenses. The district court concluded that the revocations were not authorized under either § 12-28-109, C.R.S. (1978 Repl. Vol. 5) or §