Cases

.•/•.ru-i!-!!.: •[:;;•: 2BUH0V-3 m 3-3h IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF MEDINA, No. 71157-1-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE v.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Defendant Roger Skinner was charged in a three-count indictment with conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988), use of a telephone to facilitate a drug felony in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (1988), and attempt to possess marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On the morning that his trial was to begin, Mr. Skinne

¶ 1. Roger Skinner was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) second offense and reckless driving in the Justice Court of Tishomingo County. Pursuant to URCCC 12.02, Skinner appealed the convictions for a trial de novo to the Circuit Court of Tishomingo County, where he was also convicted of both charges in a bench trial. He appeals asserting two assignments of error which both go to the DUI charge: 1) the circuit court improperly denied his motion fo

¶1 Skinner appeals the trial court’s order granting the City a statutory writ of review to challenge the award of back pay by the Medina Civil Service Commission. He argues that the City was not entitled to seek a statutory writ of review. Although the City did not apply for a constitutional writ of review, Skinner preemptively argues that the City was not entitled to one. The City stipulated at oral argument that if a constitutional writ of review rathe

CLIFF HOOFMAN, Judge ’ 11Appellant Herschel Skinner appeals from a September 14,: 2015 opinion by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) affirming and adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in favor of appellees Tango Transport, Inc. (Tango Truck), and York Risk Serv

Owens, J. ¶1 After losing his job as a police officer with the city of Medina (City) Police Department, Roger Skinner appealed his termination to the City of Medina Civil Service Commission (Commission). The Commission affirmed Skinner’s discharge. Pursuant to the Commission’s rules, Skinner filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which the Commission denied. Twenty-nine days after the denial of reconsideration, Skinner filed

Grosse, J. ¶1 Where an order of a quasi-judicial body provides a timeline within which a party may file a motion for reconsideration of its order, and a motion for reconsideration is filed and denied, the time for an appeal runs from the date of the denial of reconsideration and not from the date of the initial order. A motion for reconsideration tolls the 30-day statute of limitations on appealing a final order. Here, it is undi

ROGERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which CLAY, J., joined. DONALD, J. (pp. 784-88), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. OPINION ROGERS, Circuit Judge. When criminals use modern technological devices to carry out criminal acts and to reduce the possibility of detection, they can hardly complain when the police take advantage of

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 09-2-05619-6, Mary Yu, J., entered October 16, 2009. Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Cox, J., concurred in by Dwyer, C.J., and Leach, J.

915 A.2d 314 (2007) 99 Conn.App. 540 Matthew SKINNER et al. v. Peter J. DOELGER et al. Matthew Skinner et al. v. Michael Morosky. Nos. 25644, 26764. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued September 15, 2006. Decided February 13, 2007. *316 William M. Bloss, with whom, on the br

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 06-2-33267-9, Joan E. DuBuque, J., entered October 8, 2010 .Affirmed in part and remanded by unpublished opinion per Schindler, J., concurred in by Leach, A.C.J., and Becker, J.

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-07-00075-CV ______________________________ ROGER AND LINDA HOOPER, Appellants V. BOBBY SMALLWOOD, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A BOBBY SMALLWOOD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 62nd Judicial D

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-07-00075-CV

53 P.3d 720 (2002) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack SKINNER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00CA0522. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. V. January 3, 2002. Certiorari Denied August 26, 2002. *722 Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Roger G. Billotte, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, CO, for

THORNBURG, Judge. Defendant appeals from an order denying their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant moved for such a judgment based on the contention that the final judgment issued in the prior case Judy Skinner v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., Case No. 1:01-CV-01123 (M.D.N.C.), entered on 19 March 2003, barred plaintiff s state claims under the doctrine of res judicata. Plai

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated May 20, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment (see, Koch v Levenson, 225 AD2d

213 B.R. 335 (1997) In re Emory Gettice SKINNER, Jr., Debtor. Emory Gettice SKINNER, Jr. and George W. Stevenson, Trustee, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK and Sheriff of Humphreys County, in his official capacity, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 97-28540-L, Adversary No. 97-0848. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division. September 23, 1997.

JUSTICE STOUDER delivered the opinion of the court: Defendant-appellant, Roger Skinner, was charged by two-count information with the offenses of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Rock Island County, where evidence was introduced to the court by st

Case: 20-40136 Document: 00515958830 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 30, 2021

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, CERTIFICATION OF CONFLICT AND CLARIFICATION FERNANDEZ, J. We deny the motion for rehearing but withdraw the original opinion and substi*1166tute this opinion in its place for purposes of clarification. We deny the motion for certification of conflict. William .Skinner seeks habeas corpus relief on va