Cases

312 S.W.3d 377 (2010) Stephen M. COLEMAN, et al., Appellants, v. Robin CARNAHAN, et al., Respondents. No. ED 93726. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One. April 20, 2010. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 8, 2010. *378 Larry Delano Coleman, Raytown, MO, for appe

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1113 Shawn Coleman appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on September 21, 2009, by the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County. After review, we affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this matter are taken from the trial court's March 11, 2010 opinion. On February

OPINION PER CURIAM. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action. The petition alleged that respondent Richard J. Coleman violated the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct when he failed to act with reasonable diligence (Rule 1.3) and com*300municate with his clients (Rule 1.4), had a

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LYNNE A. SITARSKI, United States Magistrate Judge. Presently before the Court is Defendant Governor Mifflin School District’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff Andrea Coleman-Hill has opposed this motion (Doc. No. 17). The Court held oral argument on October 8, 2010.1

Coleman v Robin 2026 NY Slip Op 04399 July 15, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Audrey Coleman, appellant, v Hubert G. Robin, etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendant. Supreme Court of the State of New

885 F.Supp. 1561 (1995) James Andrew COLEMAN v. Zell MILLER, Governor of the State of Georgia and The State of Georgia. Civ. No. 1:94-CV-1673-ODE. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. March 31, 1995. *1562 *1563 Randal Alonzo Mangham, Office of Randal Alonzo Mangham, B

William T. Coleman was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, was fined $50,000, and was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual felony offender. That conviction must be reversed because the prosecutor failed to establish a proper chain of custody of the cocaine. The failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of custody for cocaine is patently conspicuous. The testimony presented, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, shows that on November 15, 1989,

In the United States Court of Federal Claims FOR PUBLICATION No. 24-976C (Filed: July 30, 2025) ) PHYLLIS ZENO COLEMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) UNITED STATES, )

Opinion issued October 15, 2015. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00036-CV ——————————— RUSSELL HAM, Appellant V. WILLIAM STEPHENS, OLIVER J. BELL,

OPINION OF THE COURT De GIULIO, Senior Judge: Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officers. Pursuant to his pleas, he was found guilty of unauthorized absence from his place of duty from 2-5 November 1990 and missing movement through design. Contrary to his pleas he was found guilty of a second specification of unauthorized absence from his place of duty from 16-27 November 1990.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 21-1893 Filed April 10, 2024 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. THON ROBIN BOL, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge. A defendant appeals his convictions for attempted murder, intimidation with a dangerous weapon, and

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS April 2, 2014 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS BETTY J. COLEMAN,

Filed 6/17/21 See Concurring Opinion CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E074251 v. (Super.Ct.No. CR59166) MICHAEL JOHN COLEMAN, OPINION Defendant and Appell

888 F.Supp. 1388 (1995) Marshall COLEMAN, et al. v. ALCOLAC, INC., et al. Civ. A. No. G-94-415. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. June 6, 1995. *1389 *1390 *1391 *1392 Francis I. Spagnoletti,

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JOSE E. MARTINEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint [ECF No. 21]. Magistrate Judge Goodman filed a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 55], recommending that

WARNER, J. The main issue presented in this appeal is whether an estate or a beneficiary of a revocable trust created by the decedent may compel the trustee to render an accounting of receipts and disbursements made during the life of the decedent, where the trust did not require account-ings, the settlor never .requested account-ings during her lifetime, and there is no showing of any breach of .fiduciary duty on the part o

Judgment rendered December 14, 2022. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 54,916-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** ROBIN JANE SAN

ISHEE, J„ for the Court. ¶ 1. On August 5, 2003, Robin Coleman pled guilty in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court in two cases of forgery. The court sentenced him to two fifteen year sentences with both fifteen year sentences suspended and five years’ probation. After Coleman was again charged with forgery, his probation was modified and he was placed in the restitution program on April 29, 2004. At a probati

OPINION BRADFORD, Judge. CASE SUMMARY Between June 25, 2013 and August 24, 2013, Appellant-Defendant Robin Eugene *771 Montgomery purchased a ten-count box of pseudoephedrine every ten days. At some point, officers from the Warrick County Sheriffs Of

CARAWAY, J., concurring. hi concur in the result. The facts indicate that despite the express description of the location for the servitude in the original 1983 right-of-way grant, the appellees for years utilized an existing driveway lying totally outside that 90-foot grant. The use of that property must be viewed as only a precarious possession by appellees occurring with the permission of the Booker famil