Cases

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

876 A.2d 1088 (2005) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Sandra REYNOLDS, Appellant. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Sandra Reynolds, Appeal of: Pennsylvania Game Commission. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 1, 2005. Decided June 16, 2005. *1089 C. Richard Morton, West Chester, for appellant, Sandra Re

388 S.C. 343 (2010) 698 S.E.2d 559 Carolyn CHESTER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sherman E. Boutte, Jr., Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, South Carolina Department of Transportation, South Carolina Forestry Commission, Gary Thomas LaSalle, COBRA Transport a/k/a Cobra Automobile Transporting, Alternative Transport Services, Florida Auto Transport, Vic Mullins as the Personal Represent

*497OPINION CARL B. JONES, Presiding Judge: 'I 1 The Appellees, Norman Reynolds, Personal Representative of the Estate of Chester Reynolds, deceased, and Joe Reynolds (Reynolds), brought this action to recover real property in the possession of Appellant, Ray Kindred (Kindred), and set aside a deed and a contract to this real property. The Reynolds we

Kugel v Reynolds (2024 NY Slip Op 03173) Kugel v Reynolds 2024 NY Slip Op 03173 Decided on June 12, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

13‐1503‐cv Sherman v. Town of Chester Town of Chester 13‐1503‐cv Sherman v. Town of Chester In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2013 No. 13‐1503‐cv NANCY J. SHERMAN

[Cite as State v. Reynolds, 2019-Ohio-2343.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 18AP-560 v. : (C.P.C. No. 17CR-5463) Lamar D. Reynolds,

Matter of Chester HH. v Angela GG. (2022 NY Slip Op 05002) Matter of Chester HH. v Angela GG. 2022 NY Slip Op 05002 Decided on August 18, 2022 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 23, 2023 No. 23-60037 Lyle W. Cayce ________

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION BREMER, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Compel Production of Retention Letters and Other Communication Between Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Their Experts, (Clerk’s No. 174), filed February 29, 2000. Plaintiffs resisted the Motion, and the court held a hearing on April 6, 2000. This matter is fully submitted.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 23, 2023 No. 23-60037 Lyle W. Cayce ________

BREMER, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Compel Production of Retention Letters and Other Communication Between Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Their Experts, (Clerk’s No. 96), filed February 29, 2000. Plaintiffs resisted the Motion, and the court held a hearing on April 6, 2000. This matter is fully submitted. BACKGROUND Plaintiff

WINSOR, J. This appeal presents two issues: whether the trial court should have granted the appellant’s motion for mistrial, and whether the trial court should have held a hearing to determine the appellant’s competency to stand trial. We affirm as to the first issue and reverse as to the second.

ON REHEARING TRAXLER, Chief Judge: The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether William Samuel Chester’s conviction for illegal possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) abridges his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2022-CA-01180-COA CHESTER SHORT AND LINDA SHORT APPELLANTS v. THE BREAK LAND COMPANY, LLC APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/14/2022 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ALBERT B. SMITH III COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: BOLIVAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL

STRAUB, Circuit Judge: Hungry Joe packed up his bags and wrote happy letters home. He had flown the 25 missions required to complete a tour of duty. But things were not so simple on Catchr-22’s Pianosa island. He soon discovered that Colonel Cathcart had just raised the number of missions to 30, *557forcing Hungry Joe to unpack his bags and rewrite his happy

ORDER LONGSTAFF, Chief Judge. The Court has before it plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, filed April 2, 2001. Certain defendants1 filed their resistance memorandum on May 21, 2001, and plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on June 7, 2001. The Court held a hearing on June 21, 2001 and the motion is fully submitted. I. BACKGROUND Th

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Charlotte once told Wilbur that “[p]eo-ple are very gullible; They’ll believe anything they see in print.” According to Plaintiff Edward J. Reynolds, D.D.S. (“Plaintiff’), the same apparently goes for phone calls. Plaintiff brings the instant Complaint, on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, alleging that'he was the victim of Defendants’ deceptive business practices. (Am. CompL

841 F.Supp. 1444 (1992) Harry L. REYNOLDS, Jr., Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR ATHLETIC FEDERATION, et al., Defendants. No. C-2-92-452. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, E.D. June 19, 1992. *1445 *1446 *1447 David Joseph Young, John Ryan Gall an

In a condemnation proceeding, the Village of Port Chester appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), dated January 20, 2011, which, upon a decision of the same court dated April 2, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded the claimants the principal sum of $3,062,000 as just compensation for the taking of the claimants’ real property, and the claimants cross-appe