Cases

363 Argued and submitted September 15, 2022, vacated and remanded June 14, 2023 Molly SMITH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Tina Pauline JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. Baker County Circuit Court 21LT02316; A176787 532 P

No. 298 June 14, 2023 363 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Molly SMITH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Tina Pauline JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. Baker County Circuit Court 21LT02316; A176787 Matthew B. Shirtcliff, Judge. Argued and submitted September 15, 2022. Rachael A. Federico argu

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 7, 2025 NO. 03-25-00655-CV Mark Smith, Appellant v. Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Appellee APPEAL FROM THE 455TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES TRIANA, KELLY, AND THEOFANIS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF J

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-25-00655-CV Mark Smith, Appellant v. Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, Appellee FROM THE 455TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-25-002142, THE HONORABLE DON R. BURGESS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant

VINCENT F. PAPALIA, Bankruptcy Judge I. INTRODUCTION This is the Opinion of the Court following the August 29, 2018 trial on the remaining count of the amended adversary complaint (the "Complaint") filed by Jimmy Smith, plaintiff pro se (the "Plaintiff"). The Complaint seeks to except from discharge under

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals granting the motion of appellee, Madison Correctional Institution Warden Rod B. Johnson, and dismissing the petition of appellant, James Smith, for a writ of habeas corpus. Smith’s claims of a speedy-trial violation and a defective jury-verdict form are not cognizable

593 F.3d 280 (2010) Patty Lee SMITH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Appellant in No. 09-1223 v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON. Patty Lee Smith, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Johnson and Johnson, Appellant in 09-1292. Nos. 09-1223, 09-1292. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued December 17, 2009. Fil

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Johnathan Lee X Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some but not all of his claims filed with his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory

31 A.3d 1233 (2011) SMITH v. JOHNSON. No. 10-CV-1038. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. November 15, 2011. DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION Reversed and remanded.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. Same case below, 343 Fed. Appx. 949.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judgé. James Edward Smith, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed suit against Sammy D. Johnson, a corree- *869 tional officer, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of Smith’s Eighth Amendment rights. Smith asserts that Johnson and another officer acted w

MEMORANDUM ** Neale E. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) for failure to comply with a discovery order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm. The district court did not ab

MEMORANDUM ** Neale E. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) for failure to comply with a discovery order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm. The district court did not ab

MEMORANDUM ** Upon review of the record and appellant’s response to this court’s July 18, 2006 *266order to show cause, this court hereby summarily affirms the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (summary affirmance appropr

440 F.3d 262 Clyde SMITH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Gary L. JOHNSON, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; Charles O'Reilly, Senior Warden, Huntsville Unit; Unknown Executioners, Defendants-Appellees. No. 06-70007. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: The plaintiff-appellant, Clyde Smith, Jr. (Smith), is scheduled to be executed on February 15, 2006. Smith appeals the district court’s dismissal of his suit seeking injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the particular method of execution used by Texas, lethal injection, causes excruciating pain during an execution in violation

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.