Cases

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.

18 Md. App. 368 (1973) 306 A.2d 642 STEPHEN WILLIAM MINOVICH v. STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 661, September Term, 1972. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Decided July 9, 1973. *369 The cause was argued before THOMPSON, CARTER and GILBERT, JJ. Charles Michael Tobin for appellant. Gilbe

787 F.Supp.2d 320 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, v. Kerry DEMINGS, Defendant. Criminal No. 09-298 (KSH). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. May 19, 2011. *321 Zach Intrater, United States Attorney's Office, Newark, NJ, for United States of America. OPINION KATHARINE S. HAYDEN, District J

904 A.2d 443 (2006) 393 Md. 680 Tony Eugene BLICKENSTAFF v. STATE of Maryland. No. 119, September Term, 2005. Court of Appeals of Maryland. August 1, 2006. *444 George E. Burns, Jr., Assistant Public Defender (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, MD for Appellant. Michelle W. Col

Appeal by the de*573fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered January 7,1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

886 A.2d 1257 (2005) STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Glen R. SLOMAN, Defendant Below, Appellee. No. 511,2004. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: October 19, 2005. Decided: November 4, 2005. *1258 Paul R. Wallace, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, for appellant. Bernard J. O'Donnel

McHugh, J. Patricia Houde and John Minavich were injured while employed by the city of Cambridge. Their applications for accidental disability retirement benefits were denied first by the Cambridge Retirement Board (board) and then by the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB). They appealed the latter denial to the Superior Court where, after a hearing, judgment entered affirming the CRAB decisions. Now they have appealed t

The opinion of the court was delivered by STERN, J.A.D. The State appeals from the dismissal of an indictment charging defendant with possession of heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(l) (count one), and possession of heroin with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A 2C:35-5b(3). The indictment was dismissed after the trial judge declared a mistrial, at defendant’s request, because of the State’s violation o

926 P.2d 1180 (1996) Willie K. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee. No. A-5885. Court of Appeals of Alaska. October 11, 1996. *1183 Marcia E. Holland, Assistant Public Defender, Fairbanks, and John B. Salemi, Public Defender, Anchorage, for Appellant. James L. Hanley, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Spec

250 B.R. 739 (2000) In re Arno Josef BERTELT, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 97-10479-8G3. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. June 1, 2000. *740 Andrew S. Forman, Tampa, FL, for debtor. Donna A. Bucella, U.S. Attorney, Charles R. Wilson, U.S. Attorney, Adelaide G. Few, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tampa, FL, for Uni

Dear Mr. Barnes: You have requested our opinion whether a defendant can be sentenced to a local detention facility for consecutive sentences under the following circumstances: no single sentence exceeds eighteen months, but the total time to be served exceeds eighteen months. In our opinion, the law does not permit a judge to commit a defendant to a local detention facility for more than eighteen months, even if that period of confinement derives from consecutive sentences, rat

109 N.J. Super. 57 (1970) 262 A.2d 232 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ROGER KIMBROUGH AND JAMES WADE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued October 6, 1969. Decided February 17, 1970. *61 Before Judges CONFORD, COLLESTER and KOLOVSKY. Mr. R

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Clifford, J. This case calls upon the Court to clarify the law in New Jersey with respect to when the State may appeal the grant of a new trial to a criminal defendant. It thus requires reexamination of the standard set forth in dictum in State v. LaFera, 42 N. J. 97, 104 (1964) which would permit a State to seek leave to appeal only if the t

I concur in the above opinion on the theory that the trusts grew out of funds which were received by the bank as the result of collections made through it for the claimants under a contract to so do and remit. Therefore, the banking concern, as trustee, would have no right to convert the money into bills receivable, or into a deposit account with another "bank," or into any other form of property. Leach v. Iowa State Sav. Bank, supra. But I do not desire to be bound by an extension o