⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

13 opinions for “Raymond Dewayne Jordan”

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2015-04-27 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 06-14-00208-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/27/2015 4:39:59
Bowman v. Statepublic domain
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2019-06-03 · Published · cited 0× · 306 Ga. 97
306 Ga. 97 FINAL COPY S19A0428. BOWMAN v. THE STATE. BENHAM, Justice. Appellant Michael DeWayne Bowman was convicted of malice murder and associated offenses in connection with the shooting death of Griffin Police Officer Kevin Jordan and the aggravated assault of Officer Jordan’s brother, Raymond.1 For the reasons that 1 In September 2015, a Spalding County grand jury indicted Bowman on the following twelve charges: (1) malice murder; (2) felony murde
Bowman v. Statepublic domain
Supreme Court of Georgia · 2019-06-03 · Published · cited 7× · 829 S.E.2d 139; 306 Ga. 97
Benham, Justice. **97Appellant Michael DeWayne Bowman was convicted of malice murder and associated offenses in connection with the shooting death of Griffin Police Officer Kevin Jordan and the aggravated assault of Officer Jordan's brother, Raymond.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2025-05-01 · Published · cited 0× · 2025 Ark. 59
Cite as 2025 Ark. 59 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS IN RE SUSPENSION OF Opinion Delivered: May 1, 2025 ATTORNEYS WHO FAILED TO PAY 2025 ANNUAL ATTORNEY-LICENSE FEE PER CURIAM The final deadline for attorneys to pay the 2025 annual attorney-license fee was April 15, 2025. As required by Rule VII(C)(9) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, the clerk of t
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018-09-13 · Published · cited 314× · 903 F.3d 1090
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL CAMPBELL; et al, * No. 15-56990 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 2:04-cv-08592- AG-AJW CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. CESAR MATA,
United States Court of Claims · 1992-09-11 · Published · cited 0× · 26 Cl. Ct. 1119; 1992 U.S. Claims LEXIS 412; 1992 WL 220416
ORDER YOCK, Judge. This civilian overtime and premium pay dispute is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed on June 4, 1990. For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Facts All the plaintiffs in this case are guards employed by the United States Department of
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1981-02-13 · Published · cited 0× · 89 F.R.D. 677; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10989; 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1301
REYNOLDS, Chief Judge. I. Introduction This is a civil action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 *679U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief because of defendants’ alleged racially discriminatory practices. The court has
McGowan v. Moorepublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2002-06-10 · Published · cited 0× · 36 F. App'x 166
PER CURIAM. Robert G. McGowan, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on a multi-plaintiff 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint filed by McGowan and over three hundred other inmates. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Blackburn v. Moore, No. CA-99-102 (D.S.C. filed Mar. 28
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · 2015-12-07 · Published · cited 0×
FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, NO. CLERK IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TE
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2015-05-06 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 03-15-00085-CV 5176028 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002-04-17 · Published · cited 5× · 52 Fed. Cl. 881; 287 F.3d 1076; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7223; 82 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,082; 88 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1066; 2002 WL 654368
PROST, Circuit Judge. This is a military pay class action case brought on behalf of officers of the United States Air Force terminated pursuant to a 1993 Reduction in Force (“RIF”). The basis of their complaint is that the formal instructions governing selection for involuntary termination required different treatment of officers based on their race or gender, thereby violating the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amen
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · 2015-06-12 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 01-15-00390-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/12/2015 9:25:40 PM