Cases

COX, J., Before the court for disposition are the preliminary objections to plaintiffs’ complaint filed on behalf of the defendants Jet Express, Inc. and Kevin Parsley contending that the plaintiffs’ complaint is legally insufficient as Kevin Parsley was not a trespasser as is required for the claim of civil trespass and he had no duty to avoid the power line as it was not in compliance with the applicable code. The def

Steven G. Carver v. State of Maryland, No. 14, September Term 2022. Opinion by Hotten, J. CRIMINAL LAW – POSTCONVICTION RELIEF – PETITION FOR WRIT OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE – MATERIALITY ANALYSIS Supreme Court of Maryland held that, in evaluating a petition filed under Md. Code Ann., Criminal Procedure (“Crim. Proc.”) § 8-301, courts must consider the cumulative effect of newly discovered evidence within the context of the entire adversarial proceeding, including its impact on: (1) any evidence admi

Steven G. Carver v. State of Maryland, No. 14, September Term 2022. Opinion by Hotten, J. CRIMINAL LAW – POSTCONVICTION RELIEF – PETITION FOR WRIT OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE – MATERIALITY ANALYSIS Supreme Court of Maryland held that, in evaluating a petition filed under Md. Code Ann., Criminal Procedure (“Crim. Proc.”) § 8-301, courts must consider the cumulative effect of newly discovered evidence within the context of the entire adversarial proceeding, including its impact on: (1) any evidence admi

Steven G. Carver v. State of Maryland, No. 14, September Term 2022. Opinion by Hotten, J. CRIMINAL LAW – POSTCONVICTION RELIEF – PETITION FOR WRIT OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE – MATERIALITY ANALYSIS Supreme Court of Maryland held that, in evaluating a petition filed under Md. Code Ann., Criminal Procedure (“Crim. Proc.”) § 8-301, courts must consider the cumulative effect of newly discovered evidence within the context of the entire adversarial proceeding, including its impact on: (1) any evidence admi

WILLIAMS, J. The defendant, Mark Edward Colby, was charged by bill of indictment with second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS On September 10, 2014, the Shreveport

295 F.Supp.2d 480 (2003) David ROSKOS, Linda Roskos and David Roskos, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. SUGARLOAF TOWNSHIP, Sugarloaf Township Police Department, Sugarloaf Township Supervisors and Diane Fisher, Defendants. No. CIV.A.3:03-CV-1090. United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. November 26, 2003. *481

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OLUWASEGUN S. AJISAFE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 25 - 81 (LLA) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Oluwasegun S. Ajisafe, proceeding pro se, brings this action ag

867 A.2d 370 (2005) 161 Md. App. 155 BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland v. Joannie M. SPRADLIN. No. 0320 September Term, 2004. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. January 31, 2005. *373 John T. Beamer (Charles W. Thompson, Jr., Karen L. Federman Henry, on the brief), Rockville, for Appell

This was a general creditors' suit against Smith Brothers, a partnership composed of G.T. Smith, J.L. Smith, and O'Donnell Smith, operating a motor truck line between Nashville and Chicago under a certificate (No. MC 16670) of convenience and necessity issued to them by the Interstate Commerce Commission June 27, 1937, under the "grandfather" clause of the Federal Motor Carrier Act of 1935, 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 306. On April 11, 1938, the partners made a mortgage for $4,000 to Lewis T. Edw

Mrs. Altman, a person of unsound mind suing by the American National Bank as her next friend and guardian, filed the bill herein against the Third National Bank in Nashville and Helen Gilbert Reynolds to recover real and personal property described in the bill and to have an accounting by the Third National Bank, which claimed the legal title to said property under certain trust instruments. Complainant was an old lady, about 79, and the widow of Dr. Altman, who had died in 1926. She h

280 F.2d 536 Willie HOLLY, Appellant,v.W. Frank SMYTH, Jr., Superintendent of the Virginia StatePenitentiary, Appellee. No. 8058. United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. Argued April 28, 1960.Decided June 3, 1960. F. D. G. Ribble and Daniel J. Meador, Charlottesville, Va. (court-appointed counsel),

SOBELOFF, Chief Judge. The constantly recurring problem of a defendant’s right to counsel in a criminal case is the issue in this habeas corpus appeal. Willie Holly, presently confined in the Virginia State Penitentiary, petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was being deprived of his liberty by the appellee, the Superintendent of the Pen

739 F.Supp. 1268 (1990) Kenneth D. COLBURN, Robert Khoury, Plaintiffs, v. TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. No. IP87-430-C. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. May 15, 1990. *1269 *1270 *1271 Richard L. Darst

This is a suit brought in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Part Two, on November 22, 1935, by J.W. Brown and his wife, Louella Brown, as complainants, against Theodore W. Eckhardt *Page 219 and Edward E. Schiel, as defendants. All the parties are described in the pleadings as residents of Davidson County, Tennessee. Complainant J.W. Brown died while the suit was pending, and before the hearing, in the Chancery Court, and, upon suggestion and

619 F.Supp. 162 (1985) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CONSERVATION CHEMICAL COMPANY, Norman B. Hjersted, Conservation Chemical Co. of Illinois, Armco Steel Corporation, FMC Corporation, International Business Machines Corp., Western Electric Company, Inc., and Mobay Chemical Company, Defendants. No. 82-0983-CV-W-5. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, W.D. July

The foregoing opinion by FERGUSON, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All the judges concur, except Coles, J., not sitting.

The foregoing opinion by BARRETT, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All the judges concur.