Cases

PER CURIAM. Affirmed, without prejudice to appellant’s raising this issue in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

191 P.3d 704 (2008) 221 Or. App. 549 STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Leo Ralph MEADE, Defendant-Appellant. C051030CR, C051433CR, A130132 (Control); A1301333. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted February 13, 2008. Decided August 13, 2008. *705 Patrick M. Ebbett argued

PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s judgment of conviction for aggravated battery (Count I) and criminal mischief (Count II), but remand for correction of the judgment, which, as the state concedes, should reflect a conviction on Count II of criminal mischief, a second degree misdemeanor, rather than criminal mischief, a first-degree misdemeanor. See § 806.13(1)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (1997). AFFIRMED,

ORDER Jamie Meade, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). In 1993, following

OPINION BY Judge McGINLEY. The City of Philadelphia (City) appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (common pleas court) which granted the motion for summary judgment of the Honorable Russell M. Nigro and the Honorable Howard M. Goldsmith (Nigro and Goldsmith). The common pleas court certified the order as a final order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341(c). I.

ORDER Brian Meade was injured in an automobile accident when another car rear-ended the one he was driving. He received short-term disability benefits from the National City Corporation Welfare Plan, and, when those expired, he began receiving long-term disability benefits. About fifteen months after he began receiving long-term benefits, the plan administrator notified Meade that it was terminating his long-term benefits because it d

106 S.W.3d 582 (2003) Michael BARANCIK, Appellant, v. Paula MEADE, Respondent. No. WD 61090. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. June 10, 2003. *584 Michaela C. Shelton, Overland Park, KS, William Shull, Liberty, for Appellant. Lloyd Koelker, Kansas City, for Respondent. RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Presiding Judge.

887 F.Supp. 324 (1995) Mark ELLIS, Plaintiff, v. William MEADE, Penobscot County Sheriff's Department, and Cheryl Gallant,[1] Defendants. Civ. No. 94-0163-B. United States District Court, D. Maine. May 1, 1995. *325 *326 Mark S. Kierstead, Waterville, ME, for plaintiff. Timot

164 F.3d 1218 137 Lab.Cas. P 58,520, 14 IER Cases 1226,99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 336,99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 396 William MEADE; Catherine A. Meade; Leland S. Stewart;Frankie Lee Stewart; Doug Vierkant; Linda K.Vierkant; David Girard; and ElizabethD. Girard, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.CEDARAPIDS, INC., an Iowa corporation, dba El-jay Divisionof Cedarapids, Inc.; Raytheon Corporation, a

Opinion by Judge EZRA; Concurrence by Judge KOZINSKI; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge WALLACE. EZRA, District Judge: Factual Background Plaintiffs William Meade, Leland S. Stewart, Doug Vierkant, and David Girard (“Plaintiffs”) and their spouses, Catherine A. Meade, Frankie Lee Stewart, Linda K. Vierkant, ■ and Elizabeth D. Girard (“Spouses”) appeal the

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2024 ME 61 Docket: Ken-23-426 Argued: May 8, 2024 Decided: August 13, 2024 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ. WILLIAM CLARDY et al. v. TROY D. JACKSON et al. STANFILL, C.J. [¶1] William Clardy,

SABERS, Justice. [¶ 1.] Major William G. Lillibridge (Lil-libridge) was hired to be the Marine Corps JROTC1 (MCJROTC) instructor for the Sturgis Brown High School in Sturgis, South Dakota. When Lilli-bridge’s contract was non-renewed by the Meade School District School Board (School District), he claimed he was entitled to a due process hearing detailed in

—Yesawich Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mugglin, J.), entered April 20, *8451998 in Otsego County, upon a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff. In this negligence action arising out of an automobile accident, defendant conceded liability and, after a jury trial on the issue of damages, plaintiff was awarded $72,023 for lost earning

—Yesawich Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mugglin, J.), entered April 20, *8451998 in Otsego County, upon a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff. In this negligence action arising out of an automobile accident, defendant conceded liability and, after a jury trial on the issue of damages, plaintiff was awarded $72,023 for lost earning

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2023 ME 17 Docket: Yor-22-221 Submitted On Briefs: November 17, 2022 Decided: March 2, 2023 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ. WILLIAM B. DANIEL v. JENNIFER M. MCCOY CONNORS, J. [¶1] Jennifer M. McCoy appeals from a

JABAR, J. [¶1] William F. Gallagher, M.D., appeals from the Superior Court's (Penobscot County, A. Murray, J. ) grant of summary judgment in favor of Penobscot Community Healthcare, Robert P. Allen, M.D., Noah Nesin, M.D., Terry White, and Lori Dwyer, Esq. (collectively, PCH). He argues that the court abused its discretion by not, on its own accord, granting him acco

474 S.E.2d 481 (1996) 196 W.Va. 551 STATE of West Virginia, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. William Harrison MEADE, Defendant Below, Appellant. No. 23109. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted April 24, 1996. Decided May 17, 1996. *482 James E. Spurlock, Huntington, for Appell

SAUFLEY, C.J. [¶ 1] Twenty-year-old Romeo Parent was killed in April 2013. He had been stabbed in the back of the neck, beaten, and choked. William True was charged with, and found guilty by a jury of, the intentional or knowing, or depraved indifference murder of Parent. 1 True appeals from the judgment of conviction ent

Mazzarelli, J. (dissenting.) I would reverse the order appealed, and grant plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, because it is my view that this appeal raises the significant question of whether a contractor who has retained a worker to perform work which is clearly one of the activities enumerated in Labor Law § 240 (1) can escape the responsibilities imposed by that statute if it requires the worker to obtain a safety device on

101 Md. App. 512 (1994) 647 A.2d 830 STATE OF MARYLAND, ET AL. v. CEDRIC MEADE. No. 1677, September Term, 1993. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. September 1, 1994. Reconsideration Denied October 25, 1994. William R. Phelan, Jr., Sr. Sol., Baltimore, for appellant, State of Maryland. Randall J. Craig, Jr. (Bernadet