Cases

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION EUGENE R. WEDOFF, Bankruptcy Judge. This Chapter 13 case is before the court on two motions. The first is the debtor’s motion for an extension of the automatic stay under § 362(c)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11, U.S.C.), asserting that she filed this case in good faith. The second is the trustee’s motion to dismiss, asserting *462

OSCN Found Document:PAYTON v APPLEGATE Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case Print Only

[Cite as State v. Payton, 2022-Ohio-2829.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO FAYETTE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2022-01-001 : OPINION - vs -

[Cite as State v. Payton, 2023-Ohio-504.] COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JUDGES: STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Plaintiff-Appellee :

Greene, J. Petitioner, the State of Maryland, asks this Court to determine whether a trial judge's decision to allow the State to reopen its case-in-chief to recall an expert witness, after the defense moved for judgment of acquittal, was a proper exercise of the trial judge's discretion. We shall hold that there may be circumstances when a trial judge in the exercise of his or he

Beachley, J. After a four-day jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, appellant Brandon Payton was convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Appellant timely appealed and presents three questions for our review, which we have reordered: 1. Was [a]ppellant deprived of a fair trial

[Cite as State v. Payton, 2022-Ohio-1726.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Case No. 21CA3952 Plaintiff-Appellee, : : v. :

Winokur, J. Henry Damon Payton appeals his conviction and his judgment and sentence, raising three issues: whether the trial court erred in denying Payton's motion for judgment of acquittal, whether the trial court erred in excluding a third-party confession, and whether a scrivener's error occurred in the judgment and sentence. We affirm on the first two issues, but write to address Payton's claim that the trial court abused its di

08/16/2021 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 1, 2021 IN RE PAYTON G.1 ET AL. Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Hamilton County No. 289100, 289101 Rober

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2022-IA-01054-SCT DOLGENCORP, LLC v. PATSY PAYTON DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/27/2022 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MATTHEW GORDON SULLIVAN TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: THOMAS QUITMAN BRAME, JR. ERIC NICHOLAS CERRA MATTHEW D. MILLER

[Cite as State v. Payton, 2018-Ohio-1376.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Case No. 17CA3793 Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : DECISION AND JUDGME

FILED MARCH 7, 2023 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE NICHOLE PAYTON,

177 Ga. App. 104 (1985) 338 S.E.2d 462 PAYTON v. THE STATE. OGLETREE v. THE STATE. 70525, 70526. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided November 7, 1985. Rehearing Denied December 2, 1985. John W. Lawson, for appellant (case no. 70525). Johnny B. Mostiler, for appellant (case no. 70526).

OPINION AND ORDER Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge Rusty Payton and Juan Soto filed suit against Kale Realty, LLC (Kale) and Voi-ceShot, LLC (VoiceShot), alleging that defendants sent unsolicited text messages to plaintiffs’ cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). (Dkt. 134 (Second Amend Compl.).) Defendants Kale and Voic

SCHALLER, J., concurring. Although I agree with the result, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court made all of the requisite findings under the circumstances of this case. The majority states: “The court did not state expressly that it found either (1) that there had been a material change of circumstances that altered its earlier findi

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Associate Justice | jAppellant State of Arkansas appeals from the order of the Searcy County Circuit Court granting a motion to suppress by appellee Mark E. Payton. The State’s sole contention on appeal is that the circuit court erred in granting the motion on the basis that Payton’s rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), were violated.

[Cite as State v. Payton, 2018-Ohio-3864.] COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. :

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge. Audrey Payton, a Fulton County employee with a salary grievance, filed an application for discretionary appeal of a superior court order that vacated an arbitration award in her favor. Because there is nothing in the trial court’s order that allows us to determine on what grounds the trial court granted the petition to vacate the arbitration award, we vacate the order and remand the case to the trial

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00274-CV ___________________________ OCTAVIOUS WILLIAMS, JR., Appellant V. PAYTON WILLIAMS, Appellee On Appeal from the 360th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 360-703239-21 Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

743 F.Supp.2d 691 (2010) Ernest PAYTON, Plaintiff, v. SAGINAW COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. Case No. 09-14288. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. October 12, 2010. *692 Ernest Payton, Saginaw, MI, pro se. Christina M. Grossi, Lawrence W. Smith, Jr., Gilbert, Smith, Saginaw, MI, for Defendant.