Cases

DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. Appellant (“Defendant”) killed her former lover (“Victim”) and was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. She complains that (1) the state failed to show that she deliberated before the slaying, and (2) the trial court erred in *225not granting a mistrial. We affirm the convictions. Background1<

Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District Division One CONNIE SANDERS-FORD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) No. SD36169 ) STAT

403 B.R. 435 (2009) In re SANDERS, Debtors. Ford Motor Credit, Appellant, v. Sandy Eugene Sanders, et al., Appellees. Bankruptcy No. 07-50783-LMC. Civil Action No. SA-07-CV-1013-XR. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division. March 30, 2009. *436 Paul W. Rosenbaum, San Antonio, TX, for debtors. Mari

Opinion COLE, P. J. Plaintiff-appellant Sanders sued Ford Motor Company (Ford) and others. In the first count of his complaint he sought recovery against Ford and one of its dealers for alleged fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the braking system of a Ford automobile purchased by appellant in 1972. *Supp. 45The acti

GARY D. WITT, Judge. Randall S. Ford appeals his convictions in the Circuit Court of Jackson County for burglary in the second degree, section 569.170,1 and possession of burglar’s tools, section 569.180. We affirm. Factual Background Randall Ford (“Ford”) was arrested in the basement of Stein and McClure Funeral Home (“Funeral Home”) early in the morning of

On Application for Rehearing BRYAN, Judge. At trial, the parties referred to a judgment the Perry Circuit Court had entered in 1996 in a civil action docketed by that court as Eugene Darden v. Eva Smith Edwards, CV-95-15 (“the Darden case”). The judgment entered in the Darden case (“the Darden judgment”) had determined the location of a segment of the section line that was different f

Stephens, J. ¶18 (dissenting) — According to the lead opinion, Tyrone Ford’s trial was over once the trial court asked, “Has the jury reached a unanimous verdict?” and the presiding juror responded, ‘Yes.” Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Aug. 29, 2007) at 390. Though the jury was not at this point polled and the court had not yet accepted its verdict, the lead opinion concludes, “Deliberations had ended, which we know becaus

Opinion RYLAARSDAM, J. JamesMcKenzie appeals from the trial court’s order awarding him only $28,350 of the nearly $48,000 in attorney fees he sought in this case, following the parties’ settlement of McKenzie’s claim under the automobile “lemon law” provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.). He contends the court abused

*********** The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and argument of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to receive further evidence or rehear the parties or their representatives. Following its review, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner, with certain modifications. The Fu

HARRELL, J. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is a companion case1 brought by residents of Jacksonville, Maryland,2 against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Petition*436er)3 for an underground gasoline leak from an Exxon Mobil-owned gasoline service station, located at the corner of

PER CURIAM. Petitioner Fredrick Lee Dietz appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, the judgment of the district court denying the writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. I. Petitioner was released on parole on July 9, 1992, after serving approximately 6 years of an aggregate 18 year sentence

PER CURIAM. In accordance with Md.Code (1973, 2006 ReplVol.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § l-403(c), a majority of the incumbent judges of this Court ordered this appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County by appellant Exxon Mobil Corporation to be reheard in banc. The in banc panel unanimously concludes: that counsel for Exxon Mobil did not waive the appellant’s right to challenge

905 N.E.2d 418 (2009) FORD MOTOR COMPANY and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., Appellants-Defendants, v. Sally MOORE, Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel A. Moore, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 73A05-0710-CV-552. Court of Appeals of Indiana. March 13, 2009. Publication Ordered May 1, 2009. *421 Nelson D. Al

OPINION PER CURIAM. Appellant Carrie S. Sanders appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hester Sanders and Helen R. Stiefel in this interpleader action filed by the United States of America. Appellant argues that the district court erred in applying state law to determine the effectiveness of a change of beneficiary made by a guardian for an incompetent, insured veteran on an insurance poli

Appellate Case: 23-7031 Document: 79 Date Filed: 11/05/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 5, 2024

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; R. I. Prichard, III, Judge. Before SMITH, P. J., and SUGG and LEE, JJ. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C. J., took no part.

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.

People v Sanders (2023 NY Slip Op 03020) People v Sanders 2023 NY Slip Op 03020 Decided on June 7, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Case: 15-31114 Document: 283-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 15-31114 March 27, 2025

People v Sanders (2022 NY Slip Op 00683) People v Sanders 2022 NY Slip Op 00683 Decided on February 2, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary La