Circuit court

The Supreme Court in Virginia reviews decisions of the circuit courts and the Court of Appeals when such appeals have been allowed, decisions from the State Corporation Commission, and certain disciplinary actions of the Virginia State Bar regarding attorneys (“Virginia Court System”, 2009). The Court of Appeals in Virginia, reviews decisions of the circuit courts in domestic relations matters, traffic infractions and criminal cases, appeals from administrative agencies, and decisions of the Virginia

In Maryland, there are 4 levels of court including district, circuit, court of special appeals, and court of appeals. The lowest court is District court, most people experiencing court will be at this one. This court deals with less serious crimes including traffic and boating violations, misdemeanors, domestic violence, landlord disputes, and small claims. Circuit Court, which is the next lowest court, generally handles more serious criminal cases, major civil cases, certain administrative agencies

In this instant appeal, Mr. Shoemaker asserts that the circuit court erred by imposing an improper purge provision after finding him to be in contempt, and that the circuit court erred in finding that Mr. Shoemaker would be liable for alimony payments in accordance with the parties’ original separation agreement. We shall address both of these arguments in turn. I. The Circuit Court Did Not Craft an Improper Purge Provision in Its Contempt Order. The scope of our review of a trial court’s

discriminatory animus by Cardinal Financial with regard to the declination to make a loan on the original terms. Thus, the circuit court looked correctly to the Substitute Trustees to advance, if it could, a nondiscriminatory reason for the denial. To meet this obligation, the Substitute Trustees relied on Ms. Waithe’s testimony at the hearing regarding what she was told by a Cardinal employee: Q: And when, when did you learn that, excuse me, that loan was not going to be available? A: Directly before

from appellant, David Brandeen, (“Father”) in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The circuit court amended its judgment on November 6, 2013. Mother later appealed the circuit court’s decision to this court, where we affirmed the circuit court’s judgment except on a question relating to the court’s marital property award. Father, sought--and was granted--an en banc review of the circuit court’s judgment. After the en banc review, the circuit court’s judgment was affirmed. Beginning on February

that the circuit court erred by denying Caldwell’s motion for a mistrial when State’s witnesses discussed evidence that had been suppressed. Additionally, Caldwell asserts that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy to commit a burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. Finally, Caldwell alleges that the imposition of two convictions and sentences for conspiracy violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The State contends that the circuit court did not

in the Circuit Court for Charles County, appellant, Sequan Taiurque Johnson (“Johnson”), was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and possession of marijuana. On June 15, 2015, Johnson was sentenced to a total of fifteen months’ incarceration. On appeal, Johnson presents two issues for our review, which we rephrase as follows:1. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Johnson’s motion to exclude documents under Md. Rule 5-403. 2. Whether the circuit court erred by

Report On Attendance of Circuit Court Criminal Sentencing Docket Date Attended: March 14, 2013 Place: Morgan County Courthouse, Decatur, Alabama Judge: Glenn Thompson Docket Criminal sentencing Attorneys Multiple attorneys representing multiple clients On March 14, 2013, the writer of this work attended a criminal sentencing docket at the Morgan County Courthouse in the Circuit Court in Decatur, Alabama. The Honorable Glenn Thompson was presiding over the criminal sentencing docket. The docket

4. Plaintiff was not denied access to courts Plaintiff's claims regarding his ability to mail documents bears upon his constitutional right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). While prisoners have a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts: Bounds does not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves into litigating engines capable of filing everything from shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims. The tools it requires to

authority that proper pleadings are essential to the judicial process . As the Illinois Appellate Court in Rubino v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 324 Ill. App. 3d 931, 938 (1st Dist. 2001), opined: “Concise and clear pleadings are vital to the administration of justice. No party should be called upon to answer or defend the redundant, jumbled and cryptic pleadings filed by plaintiff’s counsel, and no court should be forced to expend so much time and energy attempting to decipher them.” Id. at 949. This