Cases

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RICHARD ALLEN REED, Appellant. No. CR-20-0385-PR Filed February 1, 2022 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Daniell

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA ____________________________________________ STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RICHARD ALLEN REED, Appellant. ______________________________________________ No. CR-19-0059-PR

THUMMA, Chief Judge: ¶1 Defendant Richard Allen Reed died while this appeal of a criminal restitution order entered against him was pending. The State then sought dismissal of his appeal pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-106(A) (2018),1 which states that "[o]n a convicted defendant's death, the court shall dismiss any pending appeal." Because that statute is constitutional as appli

ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b) MOTION INGE PRYTZ JOHNSON, District Judge. On December 16, 2009, 880 F.Supp.2d 1162, 2009 WL 8636196 (N.D.Ala.2009), *1208the court entered its memorandum opinion and final order dismissing the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petition was time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 224

MEMORANDUM OPINION INGE PRYTZ JOHNSON, District Judge. This is an action by an Alabama state prisoner, William Ernest Kuenzel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges the constitutional validity of the conviction he received in the Talladega County Circuit Court on September 23,1988, for capital murder, for which he was sentenced to death. The petitioner, with the assistance of an attorney,

OPINION AND ORDER JAMES H. PAYNE, District Judge. Now before the Court is Defendant Reed Elsevier Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I, III and IV of the Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 21). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant Reed Elsevier Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGROUND This

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan April 21, 2021 Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice 162043

02/22/2018 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 19, 2017 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICHARD EUGENE REED Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 103209 Scott Green, Judge Mary Beth Leibowitz, Judge

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan May 22, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice 161326 & (56)

Pfeifer, J., dissenting. {¶ 31} Granted, the relief sought by the union in its requests for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary and/or permanent injunction was broad. *113However, Judge Reed tailored the temporary restraining order he issued to fit within what he was jurisdictionally empowered to do. The trial court properly determined that

KEEP, District Judge: This case presents conflicting claims over the rights to the use of the trademark name “The Platters” by individuals associated with the group. In essence, this court must determine which party is “The Great Pretender,” and which is not. Plaintiff-Appellant Martha Robi appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Herb Reed, John Valano, Reed’s booking agent, and John P. Productions

Talmadge, J. — We are asked in this case to determine if a bicyclist is entitled to the protection of the crosswalk when crossing a roadway. We hold a bicyclist using a crosswalk to cross a roadway is entitled to the protection of *58law afforded persons using crosswalks. The trial court here properly granted summary judgment on liability to the bicyclist and exonerated the

821 F.2d 322 60 A.F.T.R.2d 87-5050, 87-1 USTC P 9345,23 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 208 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Richard D. REED (86-3379), Julia Ann Reed (86-3380),Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 86-3379, 86-3380. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. Argued April 2, 1987.Decided June 2, 1987. <

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: The government appeals the district court’s order declining to enhance the defendant-appellee’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) as a career offender on the ground that the conduct underlying his earlier conviction for delivery of a controlled substance would not qualify as a “serious drug offense” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). We disagr

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RICHARD ALLEN REED, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 17-0620 FILED 10-20-2020 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2015-117844-001 The Honorable Dan

Ellington, J. This case requires us to decide what protections apply to a bicyclist using a crosswalk. The user of a crosswalk ordinarily has the right-of-way. We hold that the fact Richard Pudmaroff was on a bicycle rather than on foot does not deprive him of the right of way. Facts Richard Pudmaroff was bicycling south on the interurban bicycle trail in Kent, Washington. The trail interse

OPINION KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Campbell appeals the district court’s imposition of a 33-month sentence for possession of stolen mail to be served consecutive to the undischarged portion of a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New Jersey for a supervised release violation. He argues that the distric

BAUM, Chief Judge: Appellant was tried by special court-martial, judge alone. Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, he was convicted of the following offenses: two specifications of dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C.A. § 892; two specifications of signing a false official document in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C.A. § 907; two specifications of marij

Tony Harold Reed appeals his conviction for attempted capital murder. Punishment was assessed by the jury at forty-five years confinement. In six grounds of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the law of self-defense, in denying appellant's motion to suppress evidence, in allowing the state to bolster the testimony of three of its own witnesses, and in admitting into evidence testimony regarding an extraneous offense. We affirm the

PER CURIAM. We review Reed v. State, 545 So.2d 891, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which the Fourth District Court of appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance: WHEN SENTENCING WITHIN THE GUIDELINES, MAY A TRIAL COURT IMPOSE A SENTENCE OF COMMUNITY CONTROL TO BE FOLLOWED BY PROBATION IF THE TOTAL SENTENCE DOES NOT EXCEED THE TERM PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAW?