Cases

MAIN, Justice. Jerry Nix appeals from a. summary judgment entered by the Franklin Circuit Court finding that he is an adult in need of protective services under the Adult Protective Services Act of 1976, §§ 38-9-1 to -11, Ala. Code 1975 (“the Act”). We reverse and remand. I. Facts and Procedural History , On December ■ 7, 2015, the Franklin County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”)

POLLAK, District Judge: In this civil-rights case, this court is asked to define the contours between harms best left to the province of traditional tort law and those harms that rise to the level of constitutional violations. Appellants H.L. and Arlene Nix, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, brought a civil-rights action against the appellees seeking damages for the death of the Nix

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Transferred to the Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

538 U.S. 946 NIX ET UX., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF NIX, DECEASEDv.FRANKLIN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. No. 02-1218. Supreme Court of United States. March 31, 2003. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT.

[Cite as State v. Nix, 2025-Ohio-756.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 24AP-557 v. : (C.P.C. No. 09CR-4017) Delshaun Nix,

[Cite as Nix v. Richter, 2017-Ohio-8431.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY NANCY E. NIX, TREASURER, BUTLER : COUNTY, OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2017-04-043 Plaintiff-Appellee, : OPINION

We have examined the issues presented by appellant in this case. There is no response by appellee. We find that the authority cited is dispositive of the issues. Therefore, we perceive no need for discussion of the facts. There are three issues presented in this appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred when it recognized a Florida Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support decree as determining the amount of past due child support, instead of honoring the original divorce decre

[Cite as State v. Nix, 2012-Ohio-1160.] COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge. Plaintiff Pamela Dozier-Nix brings this action against her employer, the District of Columbia, alleging employment discrimination based on sex and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The District of Columbia has moved for summary judgment. Because the District has

625 S.E.2d 746 (2006) 280 Ga. 141 NIX v. The STATE. No. S05A1749. Supreme Court of Georgia. January 17, 2006. *748 Edward Hunt Brumby, Jr., Athens, for Appellant. Robert W. Lavender, Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Julie Amanda Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee. HUNSTEIN, Pres

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________ ) PAMELA DOZIER-NIX, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-593 (RWR) ) THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________

MEMORANDUM OPINION MCHUGH, United States District Court Judge “Well done is better than well said.”Benjamin Franklin Plaintiffs initiated this suit under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., and the corresponding federal regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 36.101 et seq., based on Defendant The Franklin Institute’s alleg

NIX, Justice, concurring. It is my understanding that today’s Opinion of the Court requires the Prison Board and the Salary Board to implement the arbitration award as far as it is within the power of these two bodies to do so. I agree that since neither of these two Boards are empowered with the legislative authority to appropriate funds or levy taxes, they are not within the proviso of section 805 of the P

139 F.Supp.2d 125 (2001) John H. NIX, Plaintiff, v. Martin HOKE, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:98CV03039 (ESH). United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 26, 2001. *126 *127 *128 Theodore M. Cooperstein, Washington, DC, for John H. Nix.

560 S.E.2d 650 (2002) 274 Ga. 801 COX ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. v. NIX. No. S01G0743. Supreme Court of Georgia. February 25, 2002. *651 Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Peter C. Canfield, Thomas M. Clyde, Atlanta, for appellant. Garland, Samuel & Loeb, Edward T.M. Garland, Nelson O. Tyrone III, Atlan

529 S.E.2d 426 (2000) 242 Ga. App. 515 NIX v. COX ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. No. A00A0070. Court of Appeals of Georgia. February 9, 2000. Reconsideration Denied February 28, 2000. Certiorari Granted June 9, 2000. Garland, Samuel & Loeb, Edward T.M. Garland, Nelson O. Tyrone III, Atlanta, for appellant.

ORDER BLATT, Senior District Judge. The pro se plaintiff, a state prisoner, is seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated policies of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) in the manner in which they charged the plaintiff with infractions of SCDC rules, placed him in administrative segregation, and conducted a hearing regarding th

538 S.E.2d 449 (2000) 273 Ga. 152 COX ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. v. NIX. No. S00G1083. Supreme Court of Georgia. November 13, 2000. *450 Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Peter C. Canfield, Thomas M. Clyde, Lawrence P. Auld, Atlanta, for appellants. Garland, Samuel & Loeb, Edward T.M. Garland, Nelson O