Court Case Brief Summary

On the evening of January 5, 1993, Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman, both twelve years of age and students at West Carroll Middle School, spoke on the telephone and decided to kill their homeroom teacher, Janice Geiger. They agreed that Coffman would bring rat poison to school the following days so that it could be placed in Geiger 's drink. After that , they would steal Geiger 's car and drive to the Smoky Mountains. On the morning of January 6, Coffman placed a packet of rat poison in her purse and board the school bus. Coffman told another student, Christy Hernandez, of the plan and show her the poison. Hernandez went and informed her homeroom teacher, Sherry

Recently in Alabama a man by the name of Anthony Ray Hinton was exonerated from death row after already spending thirty years in prison. Hinton was convicted of two separate fatal shootings of fast food restaurant managers in Birmingham, AL. One on February 25, 1985 shooting a John Davidson, and the second occurrence was on July 2, 1985 making Thomas Vason the second deceased. The evidence brought against him was a revolver that somewhat matched the one Hinton had in his home. There was no physical evidence, no fingerprints and no eyewitnesses linking him to the crime. Also, the revolver was questionable at best due to the fact the gun belonged to his mother who he lived with. Ballistics could not accurately tell if the gun Hinton had was even the weapon used in the shootings because they could not tell if his gun had been fired out of recently. They also could not conclusively say that all the bullets used in the two shootings were fired from the same gun. All in all, Hinton was convicted by a possible bullet match to his gun; and an eyewitness’s testimony from a person who was present at a similar, but different crime that Hinton was never accused of. Hinton coming from an underprivileged area only had a $1,000 to hire a ballistics expert to disprove the allegations. Thus leading to a person whose proposed allegations were questionable. Hinton was found guilty and put on Death Row. After sitting in a jail cell for thirty years he was released after firearms experts

On March 23, 2010, a cop drew closer Israel Leija, Jr. at a drive-in diner with a warrant for his capture. Leija continued to lead the police on a fast pursue on the interstate while occasionally calling the police dispatcher, saying that he had a weapon and threatening to shoot the officers pursuing him. The officers proceeded with their interest, and different officers sent spike strips. Trooper Chadrin Lee Mullenix, after discovering that other spike strips were set up, chose to seek after the substitute strategy of shooting at Leija's car keeping in mind the end goal to stop it. Despite the fact that he had not got preparing on this move, he educated one of the officers in quest for his arrangement and radioed his manager for authorization. Before accepting the permission of his boss, Mullenix got in position on a

In another decision focusing on the victim 's perception, the court upheld the armed robbery conviction of a man who used his hand under his clothing to simulate a gun during a robbery. State v. Ellison, 819 P.2d 1010, 1013 (Ariz. App. 1991). The court found it significant that the defendant simulated a weapon with his hand, observing that "[t]he victim 's perception is the same whether the weapon appears to be or is in fact real." Id. at 1012. In the court 's view, the defendant 's act posed the same potential for harm to or reaction from the victim and any bystanders. Id. at 1013. Because the victims in Ellison could reasonably have believed that the shape they saw under the defendant 's clothing was a gun, rather than his hand, the defendant created the life-threatening environment which the armed robbery statute seeks to punish. The court distinguished this case from Rodriguez by noting that in Rodriguez, "the victim never saw anything resembling a weapon; the defendant only implied that she had a gun when she threatened to 'shoot the smile off ' the victim 's face." Id. at 1012 (citing Rodriguez, 791 P.2d at 633).

Larry Darnell Booker was placed on indeterminate supervised probation on November 19, 2016, after evidence was found sufficient on charges of entering a vehicle and grand larceny. Larry was also ordered to 30 days of electronic monitoring, 75 hours of community service work, a substance abuse evaluation and restitution in the amount of $550.00. Larry successfully completed the community service work, electronic monitoring and the substance abuse assessment. Larry assessment indicated substance abuse treatment was necessary and Larry completed treatment with no issues. On December 14, 2016, evidence was found sufficient for a finding of guilt on a charge resisting arrest against Larry. Larry was ordered to remain on supervision and complete

BRENDA WELLS, Administrator of the Estate of DANNY J. WELLS, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. VINCENNES UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VINCENNES UNIVERSITY and SCOTT K. FONCANNON, Special Administrator of the Estate of JAMES JERNIGAN, deceased, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Benton Division. No. 89 C 4265. James L. Foreman, Senior District Judge. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. OVERVIEW: The widow's husband died on October 3, 1987, while taking a ride in a plane that

The key issue presented in this case is “whether the conduct of a defendant or his accomplices was sufficiently provocative of lethal resistance to support a finding of implied malice.” Taylor v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 3 Cal. 3d 578, 583 (1970). One court deemed defendant’s acts as sufficiently provocative because “far beyond committing a simple armed robbery, defendant taunted, terrorized, and toyed with the victims for an extended period of time.” People v. Baker-Riley, 207 Cal. App. 4th 631, 638 (2012). Another court convicted defendant “because [he] planned, directed, and supervised

" The case involves gun ownership rights in relation to gun ownership and use in the state of Massechutes. Private gun ownership and self defence has been a bone of of contention in legislative and judicial platforms in the US. Individual states have various legislation relating to gun ownership that are in effect in the respective states. The ownership and use of guns by individual have varied implication. A citizen 's right to feel safe and secure is enshrined in the constitution and the acquisition of weapons by individuals for their private protection has been a subject of debate due to reckless use, especially when family and freinds turn against each other in the event of disagreement or frustaration. These particular case was the supreme court 's denying the ammendement to include modern weapons such as stun guns in article 570, 582 (2008). A lady ( Caetano), a mother of two, had been arrested and arraigned in court after she had threatened her boyfriend, whom she accused of causing emotional distress to her, with a stun gun when he questioned her about about children and their whereabouts

The important facts regarding Ron D. Meyer versus Race City Classics, LLC are as follows: Mr. Meyer a lover of classic cars came across a 1970 Ford Mustang on the classic cars website being sold by Race City Classics, LLC, a North Carolina based company. Mr. Meyer initiated contact with Mr. Thomas D. Alphin, one of the owners in order to purchase this classic car. All transactional discussions were made by email or telephone. A price of $21,000 was agreed upon, in addition to the shared expense of having the vehicle shipped to Nebraska, which is Mr. Meyer’s state of residence. Mr. Meyer purchased this vehicle solely to enter it into car shows. Funds were wired to Race City Classics, LLC and the vehicle was delivered.

7. Deny: we had permits from the city and inspectors came out and approved that our Property did comply with the city’s codes and regulations.

Would filing a diversity jurisdiction lawsuit in federal district court in the Southern District of Florida result in Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. §1927, or some other violations when the defendant resides in Minnesota? It depends. It depends on whether the court will exercise discretion to sanction. The court would likely to sanction Ms. Rodriguez’s lawyer under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927 due to the motives of “home court” advantage and to inconvenience Paulsen. Ms. Rodriguez has meet subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction can be waived by Paulsen as can venue, and the choice of law would be Minnesota state law since the contract was created and breached in Minnesota.

" The case involves gun ownership rights in relation to gun ownership and use in the state of Massechutes. Private gun ownership and self defence has been a bone of of contention in legislative and judicial platforms in the US. Individual states have various legislation relating to gun ownership that are in effect in the respective states. The ownership and use of guns by individual have varied implication. A citizen 's right to feel safe and secure is enshrined in the constitution and the acquisition of weapons by individuals for their private protection has been a subject of debate due to reckless use,

MILLERSBURG — To pay for some necessary improvements at the jail and increasing inmate medical costs, Holmes County Sheriff Timothy W. Zimmerly and the Holmes County commissioners have agreed to do some cost sharing and shifting of revenues from housing out-of-county inmates.

This specific court case revolves around the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), specifically regarding particulate matter in the ozone layer. Within the CAA, it states that the Environmental Protection Agency must set a standard on the quality of ambient air so that public health is protected. This section 109 (b) (1) of the act was challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and declared it unconstitutional to delegate Congress to the EPA so that they can officially set a quality of air standard. They stated that it violated the Constitution in Article 1 Section 1 due to it delegating congressional actions to the EPA, which it cannot do under law.

Based on our communication, please find attached information in regard of payments for your court cost in General session court. Please address your payment to Clerk of Court/General Session, PO Box 8002, Anderson, SC 29622. If you wish to receive a recipe, please sent return envelope with you