Cases

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice. [¶ 1.] On May 3, 2006, Rayne Ryall Adamson (Adamson) was convicted by a jury in the South Dakota First Judicial Circuit, of two counts of witness tampering in violation of SDCL 22-11-19; one count of furnishing alcohol to a minor in violation of SDCL 35-9-1; and one count of furnishing alcohol to a person 18 years of age but less than 21 years of age in violation of SDCL 35-9-1.1. The judgment of con

27 Cal.2d 478 (1946) THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ADMIRAL DEWEY ADAMSON, Appellant. Crim. No. 4622. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. Jan. 4, 1946. Morris Lavine and Milton B. Safier for Appellant. Robert W. Kenny, Attorney General, Walter L. Bowers, Assistant Attorney General, and Frank Richards, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. TRAYNO

Argued December 3, 1935. On September 17, 1930, January 6, 1931, and August 20, 1931, respectively, contracts were executed by Schuylkill County, acting by the county commissioners, and the Poole Engineering Machine Company, a corporation, for the sale by that company to the county of the voting machines described in the contracts. The machines were delivered but have not been paid for; fifty-five of them were used at the Primary Election held September 30, 1931. On December 10, 1931,

669 S.E.2d 663 (2008) SILMAN et al. v. ASSOCIATES BELLEMEADE et al. No. A08A0863. Court of Appeals of Georgia. October 21, 2008. Reconsideration Denied November 21, 2008. *664 Kevin A. Adamson, Atlanta, for appellants. Lynn Milhollin Leonard, for appellees. BARNES, Chief Judge. In July 2004,

[Cite as State v. Rose, 2022-Ohio-3197.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2021-A-0015 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas JOHN R. ROSE,

Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or

874 A.2d 434 (2005) 386 Md. 693 Dewitt Lavon THOMAS, et al. v. Keith GLADSTONE. No. 130, September Term, 2004. Court of Appeals of Maryland. May 11, 2005. *435 Claudia Barber, Laurel, for appellants. William R. Phelan, Jr., Principal Counsel (Ralph S. Tyler, City Solicitor, on brief), for appellee.<

BEA, Circuit Judge, with whom O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: I respectfully dissent from the order denying rehearing en banc because the panel opinion directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (Mendoza), 468 U.S. 1032, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984), regarding when we should apply

OPINTON WINFREE, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION This appeal presents our first opportunity to consider whether City & Borough of Ju-neam v. Thibodeau, 1 holding that a superior court decision remanding a case to an administrative agency is not a final judgment for purposes of

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 21, 2016 Session PAUL M. MARTIN v. PERMA-CHINK SYSTEMS, INC. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County No. 330713 Deborah C. Stevens, Judge No. E2015-01466-COA-R3-CV-FILED-JUNE 27, 2016 This appeal arises from an age discrimination lawsuit brought under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (―TH

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUZ LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ; FABIOLA  GASTELUM-LOPEZ, No. 06-70868 Petitioners, Agency Nos. v.  A78-184-178 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,* Attorney A78-184-179 General, ORDER Respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by WEFING, J.A.D. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for $17,500 entered in her favor on April 30, 1997. We agree with her contention that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury and we reverse. Plaintiff Ilda Dias and her husband Manuel went to A.J. Sea-bra’s Supermarket on Lafayette Street in Newark, New Jersey on January 25,1996. T

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Chapman and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Opinion and Award. *********** The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matte

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring: This case is built on a false premise— that there was somehow a conflict between Dinardo’s right to claim the attorney-client privilege under California law and Murdoch’s federal constitutional right of confrontation. There was no conflict. The trial court could have sustained Dinardo’s claim of privilege, and then having done so, stricken Dinardo’s direct testimony on

OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Daniel H. Chaney, appeals the judgment of the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of rape and gross sexual imposition. On appeal, Chaney argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress; that the trial court erred in overruling his motion in limine; that the trial court erred in denying his motion to instruct the jury on lesser includ

287 N.W.2d 657 (1980) ALLIED AVIATION FUELING COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, Appellant, v. DOVER CORPORATION, Respondent, Leslie Miller Construction Company, Defendant, and DOVER CORPORATION, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. TULSA SCREW PRODUCTS, INC., and Standard Pressed Company, Third Party Defendants. No. 48134. Supreme Court of Minnesota. January 11, 1980.

352 N.W.2d 30 (1984) William Edward McCORMACK et al., Appellants, v. Evan F. LINDBERG, M.D., Respondent. No. C5-83-1448. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. June 12, 1984. *32 Gerald R. Keating, Freeman, Gill, Egan, & Keating, Minneapolis, for appellants. Robert M. Frazee, Robert E. Salmon, Meagher, Geer, Markham, Anderson,

Opinion by Judge Blatt, This case involves a workmen’s compensation claim filed by LeRoy C. Stack (claimant) on July 14, 1965 alleging an injury to his right ankle suffered on March 10, 1965 in an accident while he was working for E-C Apparatus Corp. (employer). After conducting a hearing, Referee Citman awarded benefits. Unfortunately, however, while this decision was on appeal to the Workmen’s Compensation A

569 P.2d 480 (1977) Harry Lanear JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. No. F-77-223. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. September 16, 1977. Joe W. Hamlin, Burton & Hamlin, Lawton, for appellant. Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Duane N. Rasmussen, Legal Intern, for appellee.

137 Ariz. 183 (1983) 669 P.2d 616 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Mickey Lynn MAY, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 5874. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C. August 23, 1983. *185 Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer III, Chief Counsel, Crim. Div., Gary A. Fadell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ph