Cases

680 F.3d 919 (2012) Sarah WHITEHEAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence J. BOND, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 11-2225. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued March 27, 2012. Decided May 21, 2012. *921 Irene K. Dymkar (argued), Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Myriam Z. Ka

BATTAGLIA, J. This case presents us with the opportunity, yet again, to explore the parameters of reasonable suspicion to support a Terry stop, 1 as well as what constitutes an arrest for Fourth Amendment purposes. Ira Chase, Petitioner, presents the follo

Bandstra, C.J. INTRODUCTION In Riverside Co v McLaughlin, 500 US 44, 56; 111 S Ct 1661; 114 L Ed 2d 49 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that, following an arrest without a warrant, “a jurisdiction that provides judicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, [be found to] comply with the promptness requirement” of the federal constitution’s

604 N.W.2d 737 (1999) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick WHITEHEAD, a/k/a Darrick J. Walls, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 203626. Court of Appeals of Michigan. Submitted June 17, 1999, at Detroit. Decided October 8, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. Released for Publication January 25, 2000.

OPINION BARKER, Judge. ¶ 1 This special action presents the issue of whether evidence of justification in a manslaughter case that would be prohibited un*262der Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 13-401(A), -412(C) and -417(C) (2001) if a justification defense were sought, may be admissible if it is relevant on a separate issue. The State

878 F.Supp. 1066 (1994) Katherine WHITEHEAD, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 94-3018-TUA. United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division. December 31, 1994. *1067 Robert E. Hoskins, Foster & Foster, Greenville, SC, Glen G. Reid, Jr. and William M. Larsha, Jr., McDonnell Dyer, Memphis,

LANDAU, J. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. *12 LANDAU, J. Petitioners are a group of miners who operate small suction dredges in Oregon waterways. In this case, they chal

620 F.3d 596 (2010) William SHEFFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT THOMAS, KENTUCKY; Mary Brown, Mayor; Barbara Runge, James Doepker, Roger Peterman, Barbara Thompson-Levine, and Tom Lampe, Council Members; and Eric Haas, Mayor Pro-Tem; in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees. No. 09-5619. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2019-KA-00302-COA SETH COPES A/K/A SETH THOMAS COPES APPELLANT A/K/A SETH T. COPES v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/30/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JAMES T. KITCHENS JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCU

Shearing, L, dissenting: I would dismiss Judge Whitehead’s petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition. I would hold that the Judicial Discipline Commission has jurisdiction to proceed to a probable cause hearing based on the complaint prepared by special counsel Donald Campbell. I would hold that Judge Whitehead has been furnished with all of the documents required to be

SETH, Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Defendant-appellant, Benjamin Tisda

852 N.E.2d 619 (2006) Nedal HAMED, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 45A05-0512-CR-700. Court of Appeals of Indiana. August 15, 2006. *620 Thomas W. Vanes, Crown Point, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, J.T. Whitehead, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapoli

Vaidik, Chief Judge. *630 [1] Jennifer Schooler was convicted of murder and Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent for killing her boyfriend's three-year-old son and failing to seek medical treatment for him, and the trial court sentenced her to maximum and consecutive sentences. Schooler now

[Cite as PrimeLending, A PlainsCapital Co. v. Milhoan, 2020-Ohio-3703.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PRIMELENDING, A PLAINSCAPITAL JUDGES: COMPANY Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Plaint

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-2551 ___________________________ Douglas A. Kelley, in his capacity as the Trustee of the BMO Litigation Trust, lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee, v. BMO Harris Bank National Association, as successor to M&I Ma

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-2551 ___________________________ Douglas A. Kelley, in his capacity as the Trustee of the BMO Litigation Trust, lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee, v. BMO Harris Bank National Association, as successor to M&I Ma

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-22-00055-CR DAVID MICHAEL WIGGS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. F391-21

OPINION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant-Appellant Manuel Clara appeals his conviction and sentence for intimidation, a Class C felony. We affirm. ISSUES Clara raises two issues, which we restate as: I. Whether the trial court erred in denying Clara's motion for judgment on the evidence or directed verdict; and II. Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court wa

290 F.Supp. 74 (1968) Edward SERZYSKO, Plaintiff, v. The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, Defendant. No. 65 Civil 718. United States District Court S. D. New York. September 19, 1968. *75 *76 Jay J. Gurfein and Arthur M. Gurfein, of Gurfein & Gurfein, New York City, and Walter Talmont, Garden City, N

OPINION Opinion by Justice MARTIN RICHTER. Home State County Mutual Insurance Company (“Home State”) brings this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion for partial summary judgment. Home State raises a single issue in this Court, contending an uninsured motorist policy provision does not cover damages sustaine