Cases

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Same case below, 361 Fed. Appx. 163.

MULLINS, J. **680 The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the defendant, Eugene L. Walker, failed to establish a violation of his right under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution to confront witnesses against him. Speci

RULING AND ORDER KRAVITZ, District Judge. Plaintiffs in this case are firefighters who allege that their employer, the City of Waterbury (“the City”), deprived them of their right to substantive due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by altering the terms of their retirement benefits. They bring this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking money damages, attorneys’ fees, and co

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION KRAVITZ, District Judge. In this consolidated action,1 a number of firefighters assert that their employer, the City of Waterbury (the “City”), deprived them of their right to substantive due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by altering the terms of their retirement benefits. In Laccone v. City of Waterbury,

Opinion POHLMAN, Judge: ¶1 Timothy Noble Walker asserts that he was denied his federal constitutional right to a jury trial with respect to a key element of the State’s case. We agree and therefore vacate his conviction and remand for a new trial. BACKGROUND 1

601 F.Supp.2d 420 (2009) Timothy D. WALKER et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WATERBURY, Defendant/Cross Claimant, v. Waterbury Firefighter Association, Local 1339, Cross Defendant. No. 3:04cv1477 (MRK). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. March 6, 2009. *421 John R. Williams, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiffs. G

421 F.Supp.2d 461 (2006) Timothy D. WALKER et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WATERBURY et al., Defendants. No. 304CV1477MRK. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. February 21, 2006. *462 John R. Williams, New Haven, CT, for plaintiff. Gabriel Joseph Jiran, Shipman & Goodwin, Hartford, CT, Gary S. Starr, Shipman &a;

KAHN, J. The defendant, Eugene L. Walker, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c ; manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55a(a) ; attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49(a)(2) and 53a-134(a)(2) ;

*85Denied.

OPINION AND ORDER TERENCE C. KERN, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion to Dismiss”) (Doc. 12) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”). I. Factual Allegations in Complaint Plaintiff Tonya Walker was employed by Defendant Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. from May 19, 2006 until her discharge on

MEMORANDUM TAURO, District Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiffs Donovan and Nancy Walker initiated this suit against members of the Boston Police Department for alleged police misconduct. They claim that officers conducted an illegal search of their home and used excessive force against Mr. Walker. Before the court are eight separate motions to dismiss the Walkers’ Th

OPINION and ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge. In an order dated June 6, 2014, dkt. #118, I denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim that Wisconsin laws banning same-sex couples from marrying violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, I did not resolve plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief or d

OPINION and ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge. Plaintiffs in this case are challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin restrictions on marriage between same-sex couples. After plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction in favor of ah expedited schedule, dkt. # 55, Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker set deadlines for filing dispositive motions, which means that briefing will be finish

O’Donnell, J., dissenting. {¶ 29} Respectfully, I dissent. Sufficiency of the Evidence {¶ 30} The test for the sufficiency of the evidence involves a question of law for resolution by the appellate court, to determine whether, after construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the state, any reasonable trier of fact could find that the state presented evidenc

OPINION and ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge. Plaintiffs Virginia Wolf, Carol Schumacher, Kami Young, Karina Willes, Roy Badger, Garth Wangemann, Charvonne Kemp, Marie Carlson, Judith Trampf, Katharina Heyning, Salud Garcia, Pamela Kleiss, William Hurtubise, Leslie Palmer, Johannes Wallmann and Keith Borden are eight same-sex couples residing in the state of Wisconsin who either want to get married

MEMORANDUM ** Washington state prisoner Timothy T. Walker appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and affirm. Walker contends the district court erred by dismissing his petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. We review the district court’s deci

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1264 ¶ 1. Tim Walker sued Richard Benz, Jr. on a tort claim for assault. A jury sitting before the Leflore County Circuit Court returned a verdict for Benz and found that Benz was not liable to Walker for assault. Aggrieved, Walker appeals and raises four issues, listed verbatim: I. WHETHER T

O’Neill, J., dissenting. {¶ 30} This case can be reduced to a single narrow issue: Does a city council have the power to limit the municipal court’s jurisdiction in “traffic camera” cases and confer jurisdiction on a nonelected hearing officer? The answer is a resounding no. As the Sixth District correctly concluded, one need only look at R.C. 1901.20(A)(

545 F.3d 1081 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Timothy McCrae WALKER, Also Known as Timothy Scorpio Walker, Also Known as Timothy McCree Walker, Also Known as Timothy McCree Johnson, Appellant. No. 06-3143. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued October 3, 2008. Decided November 14, 2008.

632 S.E.2d 482 (2006) 279 Ga. App. 749 WALKER v. The STATE. No. A06A1294. Court of Appeals of Georgia. June 12, 2006. *483 Jeffrey L. Grube, Robins, for appellant. Kelly R. Burke, District Attorney, Timothy M. Marlow, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. JOHNSON, Presiding Judge.