Cases

(2008) Angela Dianna THOMPSON and Albert Thompson, Plaintiffs, v. Roger QUARLES and Werner Enterprises, Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. CV107-149. United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division. July 16, 2008. ORDER ANTHONY A. ALAIMO, District Judge. Plaintiffs, Angela Dianna Thompson and Albert Thompson, filed the abo

The appellant, Toney Sam Quarles, was convicted of three counts of first degree robbery. He was apparently sentenced to serve twenty-two years in prison on each count, the sentences to be served concurrently. Oral notice of appeal was given on the day of sentencing. The evidence indicated that four men robbed Sounds Great, an electronics store in Birmingham, on August 16, 1994. Three employees of Sounds Great and one customer who was in the store on the day of the robbery testified th

250 P.3d 320 (2011) 2011 OK 13 Fonda "Nikki" QUARLES, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Jayesh PANCHAL, M.D., Defendant/Appellee. No. 107,159. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. March 1, 2011. Rehearing Denied April 25, 2011. *321 Elizabeth R. Castleberry, Burch & George, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintif

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS. STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: This appeal involves the application of subsection (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988), known as the “deliberative process” exemption, to certain cost estimates prepared by Navy officials in the course of the Navy’s selecting h

[Cite as State v. Quarles, 2025-Ohio-4859.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 25AP-243 v. : (C.P.C. No. 23CR-639) Derrick Quarles,

OPINION PER CURIAM. The petition for allowance of appeal having been improvidently granted, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

GROSS, J. This is an appeal from a summary judgment for the defendant in a legal malpractice action that centered on an attorney’s advice about his client’s contractual exposure to the opposing party’s attorney’s fees under Florida law. Because the advice was in accord with the weight of Florida law, we hold there was no malpractice at all. To the extent that any of the challeng

229 Pa. Superior Ct. 363 (1974) Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Quarles. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued June 12, 1973. June 21, 1974. *365 Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE, and SPAETH, JJ. *366 Stephen B. Harris, First Assistant District Attor

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan May 24, 2011 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice 142641

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON NOVEMBER 17, 2009 Session MELVIN QUARLES, ET AL. v. BARBARA ATKINS SMITH, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Fayette County No. 14332 William C. Cole, Chancellor No. W2009-00514-COA-R3-CV - Filed February 24, 2010 This case involves a boundary line dispute. Plaintiffs brough

23 B.R. 392 (1982) In the Matter of Oliver PLUNKETT, Monica Plunkett, Debtors. QUARLES HOUSE APARTMENTS, Plaintiff, v. Oliver PLUNKETT, Monica Plunkett, Thomas Korb, Interim Trustee, Defendants. QUARLES HOUSE APARTMENTS, Plaintiff, v. Oliver PLUNKETT, Monica Plunkett, Ralph Anzivino, Trustee, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 82-01119, Adv. Nos. 82-0481, 82-0674. United States Bankruptcy Court

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Associated Randall Bank, a financial institution chartered by Wisconsin, frequently invested in bonds issued by state and local governments. Between the mid 1970s and 1987 it relied on advice furnished by James Kubik. Since 1980 Kubik has been a principal of Griffin, Kubik, Stephens & Thompson, Inc., a broker-dealer specializing in municipal securi

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT BARBARA L. STEPHENS, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-BU1, MORTGAGE LOAN PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-BU1, Appellee. No. 2D20-3492

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT BARBARA STEPHENS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v.

Justice O’Connor, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), the Court held unconstitutional, because inherently compelled, the admission of statements derived from in-custody questioning not preceded by an explanation of the privilege against self-incrimination and the consequences of forgoing it. T

597 F.Supp. 1037 (1984) James O. QUARLES, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (MOTORS HOLDING DIVISION), Defendant. No. CIV-84-629T. United States District Court, W.D. New York. October 31, 1984. *1038 Geiger & Rothenberg, Rochester, N.Y. (Alexander Geiger, Rochester, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff. Harter, Secr

75 Wn.2d 808 (1969) 454 P.2d 224 ROBERT SUMMERRISE et al., Appellants, v. LORENZO L. STEPHENS, Respondent.[*] No. 39485. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. April 24, 1969. Schroeter, Jackson, Talbot & Smith, Chas H.W. Talbot, and Leonard W. Schroeter, for appellants. Williams, Lanza, Kastne

STOCKSLAGEE, J. — This case is here on appeal from a judgment of the district court of Nez Perces county. The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff is the owner in fee of lots 11 and 12, block 29, of the city of Lewiston, together with buildings and improvements, known as the “Isaman Building"; that about the first day of September, 1900, there was upon said premises a three-story brick building, and that on or about that date

342 S.W.2d 822 (1961) G. B. STEPHENS, Appellant, v. B. D. RHEA, Appellee. No. 7017. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo. January 23, 1961. Fred R. Disheroon, Dallas, for appellant. Ray & Baughman and Boyd Knudtson, Amarillo, for appellee. NORTHCUTT, Justice. The plaintiff, B. D. Rhea, appellee here, filed suit against G. B. Stephens, a

* Headnotes 1. Replevin, 34 Cyc., p. 1354; 2. Pleading, 31 Cyc., pp. 548, 549; 3. Pleading, 31 Cyc., pp. 68, 556, 557, 564; Replevin, 34 Cyc., p. 1466; 4. Chattel Mortgages, 11 C.J., Section 188; 5. Chattel Mortgages, 11 C.J., Section 251. This is an action of replevin in which the appellee, who was the plaintiff in the court below, was awarded the possession of a piano. The declaration alleges: "That heretofore,