Cases

696 S.W.2d 160 (1985) Jack V. VICK, Appellant, v. Elton GEORGE, et ux, et al., Appellees. No. 04-81-00417-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. June 28, 1985. Rehearing Denied September 3, 1985. *161 Bernie Martinez, Frederick R. Zlotucha, San Antonio, for appellant. Lewin Plunkett, Ty Griesenbeck, J

Robert S. Dobson III, as personal representative of the estate of Carrie Vick, deceased ("the Estate"), instituted garnishment proceedings in the Mobile Circuit Court seeking to garnish a debt owed by Elmer Vick to Loyd Vick in order to satisfy a $1,250,000 judgment previously entered by that court against Loyd and in favor of the Estate. The trial court denied the Estate's request to issue the writ of garnishment. On August 1, 2008, the Estate assigned its interest in the judgment en

MARTIN, Judge. The record before us contains a “Grouping of Exceptions and Assignments of Error.” None of these assignments of error cites specifically numbered exceptions appearing in the record. Exceptions not duly noted in the record, but appearing only under the purported assignments of error will not be considered. State v. Barnes, 18 N.C. App. 263, 196 S.E. 2d 576 (1973) ; Midgett v. Midgett, 5 N.C. A

675 So.2d 714 (1996) Jack Kenneth VICK, Jr., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Linda VICK, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. No. 94-1649. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. June 28, 1996. *716 Donald N. Crowell, Orlando, for Appellant /Cross-Appellee. J. Cheney Mason of J. Cheney Mason, P.A., Orlando, and Marcia K. Li

417 F.Supp.2d 868 (2006) Joanne VICK, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. No. 03-CV-73124-DT. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. February 21, 2006. *869 Phillip S. Serafini, Troy, MI, for Plaintiff. David M. Davis, Kay R. Butler, Hardy, Lewis, Birmingham, MI, for Defen

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs May 7, 2013 JASPER LEE VICK v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 02-09113 Chris Craft, Judge No. W2012-01477-CCA-R3-PC - Filed June 4, 2013 The petitioner, Jasper Lee Vick, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON FILED GARY CHRIS VICK, SR., ) ) June 16, 1999 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Benton Chancery No. 6654 ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. v. )

WELLS, Judge. Defendant first assigns as error two findings of fact made by the trial court on grounds that they were not supported by any evidence. The court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by any competent evidence, even though there may be evidence in the record to support contrary findings. Henderson County v. Osteen, 297 N.C. 113, 254 S.E. 2d 160

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00019-CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF THOMAS EUGENE VICK AND DIANA LYNN VICK AND IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.V. AND L.L.V., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 18, 2008 Session CAROL ANN VICK WATSON v. FRANK LEE WATSON, JR. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-01-2398-1 Walter L. Evans, Chancellor No. W2007-02735-COA-R3-

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Ortiz and Chaney PUBLISHED Argued at Fairfax, Virginia ROBERT K. HARWOOD, L.C. v. Record No. 1600-24-4 JUAN CARLOS ARANIBAR CHINCHILLA, ET AL. OPINION BY JUDGE DANIEL E. ORTIZ LLOYD MARTIN, PLC

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 6, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JASPER L. VICK Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 02-09113 Arthur T. Bennett, Judge No. W2005-00467-CCA-R3-CD - Filed March 22, 2006 Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of especially aggra

804 F.Supp. 83 (1992) Lynn MARTIN, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, v. NICKELS AND DIMES, INC., a Corporation Doing Business as "The Tilt," Defendant. Civ. No. 85-00243 HMF. United States District Court, D. Hawaii. October 7, 1992. *84 John Nangle, Jonathan S. Vick, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Los Angeles, Cal., Daniel A. Bent, U.S. Atty.

DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. Deborah Martin tripped on a crank protruding from a relative’s hospital bed at Mercy Villa, a skilled nursing facility. A jury assessed Mercy 70% of the fault and liability for Ms. Martin’s injuries and denied her husband’s consortium claim. Mercy appeals, raising three points. We affirm. Points I & II We take in reverse order Mercy’s charges that the trial cour

OPINION Justice BAER.1 This capital case involves cross-appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, which denied Bradley Martin’s guilt phase claims under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, but granted a new penalty hearing on the grounds that trial counsel was *172</

1 A.3d 868 (2010) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Bradley MARTIN, Appellant. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Bradley Martin, Appellee. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Bradley Martin, Appellant. No. 441 CAP, No. 442 CAP, No. 443 CAP. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted June 2, 2005. Decided August 17, 2

345 S.E.2d 217 (1986) William Douglas VICK and Patricia Vick v. Darrell St. Clair DAVIS. No. 654A85. Supreme Court of North Carolina. July 2, 1986. Sanford Adams McCullough & Beard by Charles C. Meeker and Cynthia Leigh Wittmer, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellees. Moore, Ragsdale, Liggett, Ray & Foley, P.A. by George R. Ragsdale, Nancy Dail Fountain, an

191 Va. 731 (1951) HENRY J. VICK v. SIDNEY SIEGEL. Record No. 3728. (8) Appeal and Error -- Rule 5:1, Secs. 4 and 6(d) of the Supreme Court of January 15, 1951. Cleaton E. Rabey, William L. Ward and Russell T. Bradford, for the plaintiff in error. James G. Martin & Sons, for the defendant in error. Present, Hudgins, C.J., and Gregory,

PER CURIAM. The appellant railway company, the defendant below, has appealed from an adverse judgment based on a jury verdict in a case arising out of a railroad crossing collision between a train and an automobile. Appellant states and argues three points dealing with admission of evidence, one of which also concerns comments of counsel in argument to the jury. On consideration thereof in the light of the briefs and record