Learn More About This
Directory
This directory sponsored by SIQL, a Spider Makers company...
1. Decision on Appellant's Motion to Amend Notice of Appeal
- www.un.org
- DECISION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF APPEAL.
- Counsel for the Appellant: .
- NOTING "Momir Nikolic’s Notice of Appeal" filed on 30 December 2003 by Momir Nikolic ("Notice of Appeal" and "Appellant", respectively);.
- NOTING "Momir Nikolic’s Opening Brief on Appeal" filed confidentially on 24 May 2004 ("Appellant’s Brief") and the "Redacted and Conformed Momir Nikolic’s Opening Brief on Appeal" filed on 21 September 2004; .
- NOTING the "Appellant’s Reply Brief on Appeal" filed confidentially on 20 August 2004 and the "Notice of Withdrawal of Section II. ... of Appellant’s Reply Brief on Appeal and Relevant Portions of Related Pleadings" filed confidentially on 15 September 2004 by the Appellant;.
- BEING SEISED OF the "Appellant’s Motion to Amend Notice of Appeal" filed on 5 October 2004 ("Motion"), whereby the Appellant moves the Appeals Chamber to authorise the filing of an amended notice of appeals in the form appended to the Motion ("Proposed Amended Notice of Appeal") ;.
- B and developed in the Appellant’s Brief ("Grounds 1. ...
- NOTING that, in support of his Motion, the Appellant submits inter alia:.
- (iii) that the proposed Amended Notice of Appeal appended to the Motion would put the Notice of Appeal in conformity with the Appellant’s Brief;.
- NOTING the "Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Motion to Amend Notice of Appeal" filed on 15 October 2004, whereby the Prosecution indicates having no objection to the Motion;.
- NOTING that the Appellant did not file a reply;.
- and 5 have been fully addressed by the Appellant in the Appellant’s Brief4 and by the Prosecution in the Respondent’s Brief;5.
- CONSIDERING that the Appellant had put the Appeals Chamber and the Prosecution on notice that he "will not be pursuing issue 5 from his Notice of Appeal";6.
- CONSIDERING that the addition of the proposed new grounds of appeal and the deletion of the ground not addressed would put the Notice of Appeal in conformity with the Appellant’s Brief;.
- CONSIDERING that the formal modifications suggested by the Appellant are very minor and do not affect the content of the Notice of Appeal; .
2. 39 Wn.2d 473, ANDE MITCHELLE, Appellant, v. PATRICK M. STEELE et al., Respondents
- www.mrsc.org
- 2d 473, ANDE MITCHELLE, Appellant, v. ...
- ANDE MITCHELLE, Appellant, v. ...
- Johnston, for appellant. ...
- This action was brought by appellant to recover damages for malicious prosecution from one Eugene Fiedler, and from Patrick M. ...
- The defendant Fiedler was the complainant in a criminal proceeding against appellant in a justice court in Pierce county. ...
- The trial court sustained the demurrer of the respondents to the amended complaint of appellant. ...
- The material facts alleged by appellant are, in substance: Fiedler maliciously procured the arrest of appellant on a charge of assault in the first degree; appellant was unable to furnish bail and was confined in the Pierce county jail from October 13, 1950, until November 10, 1950; respondent Felix, in his capacity as deputy prosecuting .
- attorney of the county, then informed appellant that, unless he would consent to confinement in Western State Hospital at Steilacoom for observation and examination, he would be kept in the county jail until the latter part of March, 1951, without a hearing; appellant, coerced by this statement, signed a consent for such examination; Felix further promised appellant that the examination would be made within ten days, and, if appellant should be found mentally normal, the criminal action would be dismissed; appellant was released on his personal recognizance to go to Western State Hospital; no examination was made of him until December 6, 1950, when he was found free from psychosis and discharged; Felix knew that the criminal charge against appellant was untrue, but obtained its dismissal upon a false ground injurious to appellant; respondent Steele gave an official bond as prosecuting attorney, and his failure to protect appellant against the alleged acts of his deputy Felix, and to try the charge against appellant in the manner provided by law, was a breach of his official duty and of the condition of his bond. ...
- 1 Appellant's cause of action rests upon acts alleged to have been done by Steele and Felix in their official capacities and in neglect of their official duties. ...
3. DOJ/Antitrust
- www.usdoj.gov
- Defendant-Appellant,.
- Defendant-Appellant,.
- Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant, .
- BRIEF FOR APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT.
- Finally, contrary to appellant's assertions (WBr. ...
- The prosecutor did not improperly comment on appellant's failure to testify when he drew the jury's attention to the statements that Wilson and Andreas made on June 27, 1995, when they were interviewed by the FBI. ...
- But neither appellant made contemporaneous objections to the remarks they now attack and, for the reasons previously stated, they can complain only of plain error. ...
- 32(a)(7), the undersigned hereby certifies that this Brief for Appellee and Cross-Appellant United States of America complies with the type-volume requirements of that Rule and this Court's order of September 29, 1999, permitting a brief of not to exceed 24,000 words. ...
- I hereby certify that on this 19th day of October 1999, I served a copy of BRIEF FOR APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the accompanying GOVERNMENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX by first-class mail on the following:.
4. U.S.C.A. Sixth Circuit Case No. 98-2411; Appellant's Brief filed April 19, 1999
- www.bobkarolrico-informant.com
- CV-96-75504 Robert Karol Appellant - Plaintiff vs. ...
- PRO-SE APPELLANT'S BRIEF.
- The Appellant, Robert G. ... 98-2411 before this court, is seeking to have the courts enforce and uphold the Appellant's civil rights to petition the government for a redress of grievances as outlined in District Court Case No. ... 96-75504 based on her opinion that the statue of limitations had expired prior to the filing of the complaint in February of 1997 by the Appellant, Robert Karol. ... 96-75504 which was filed by the Appellant, Robert Karol, in February of 1997, was stated to be 3 years by the Honorable Denise Page Hood. The Appellant, Robert Karol, does not argue the court's finding with regards to the 3 year statue of limitations. The Appellant, Robert Karol, does argue that the statue of limitations did not begin to toll until after the Appellant, Robert Karol filed the complaint in District Court Case No. ... The Appellee, United States Secret Service, engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity from 1990 until January of 1995 in order to Obstruct Justice by Tampering and Retaliating against the Appellant, Robert Karol. ...
- The Appellant, Robert Karol, is guaranteed equal protection of the Michigan Racketeering laws contained in Public Acts 1931, No. ...
- The Appellant, Robert G. Karol, alleges that the Appellee, United States Secret Service, and it's special agents, knowingly used intimidation and physical force to arrest the Appellant, Robert Karol, on a false charge on December 14, 1994 as a means to prevent the Appellant, Robert Karol, from filing a R. ...
- The Appellant, Robert Karol, argues that the Appellee, United States Secret Service, engaged in additional acts of misleading conduct, harassment and retaliation against the Appellant, Robert Karol, in December of 1994 and in January of 1995. ...
- Furthermore, the Appellant, Robert Karol, argues that the defendants listed in District Court Case No. ... enterprise in December of 1994 with intent to engage in misleading conduct, harassment and retaliation against the Appellant, Robert Karol. ... The Appellant, Robert Karol, had been informing on the Appellee, United States Secret Service, to government officials in Washington, D. ... The Appellant, Robert Karol, alleges that the Appellee, United States Secret Service, engaged in misleading conduct, harassment and retaliation against the Appellant, Robert Karol, as a means to obstruct the Appellant's civil right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by Amendment XIV in the Bill of Rights. The Appellant, Robert Karol, alleges that the Appellees also engaged in a pattern of misleading conduct, harassment and retaliation against the Appellant, Robert Karol which has resulted in Obstruction of Justice. The Appellant, Robert Karol became a victim of a R. ... criminal conspiracy which was formed by the Appellees after the Appellant, Robert Karol approached the Appellees, United States Secret Service and U. ... The Appellant, Robert Karol, became a federal racketeering informant at that time as a means to lawfully enforce the rights of a baby girl, Danielle Ashley Brennan, ( a class of persons guaranteed equal protection under the Michigan Child Protection Law ) by reporting that baby girl's mother, Miguel ( Sauber ) Brennan, for child abuse/neglect. ...
5. Brief for the Appellant in Stanley v Georgia
- www.law.umkc.edu
- ROBERT ELI STANLEY, Appellant, .
- Brief for Appellant on the Merits.
- Counsel for Appellant.
- BRIEF FOR APPELLANT ON THE MERITS .
- This was a criminal proceeding brought by the State of Georgia charging the appellant with a felony, possessing obscene material in violation of Georgia Code 26-6301 as amended by an Act of the General Assembly of 1963, p. ...
- 78) , under which the appellant was convicted, is repugnant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing freedom of press and due process in that the statute removes the element of scienter from the definition of the offense of possessing obscene matter, and makes the mere possession of such matter a crime. ...
- Whether a state officer, acting in concert with federal agents executing a federal search warrant issued for failure to register as a gambler, were constitutionally authorized to seize motion picture films concealed in a desk drawer of appellant's home on a claim by the state officer that the films were obscene where such search warrant did not describe the films to be seized and there was no prior adjudication that they were obscene. ...
- Whether a state may constitutionally punish an individual for the mere possession of films alleged to be obscene where there is no evidence to show the appellant had prior knowledge that they were obscene, or that he had ever viewed them, or that he had permitted juveniles to view them, or that he was publishing them in a manner so obtrusive as to make it impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure to them, or that he was "pandering" them. ...
- The appellant was indicted by the Fulton County Grand Jury for the offense of possessing obscene matter, to-wit: three reels of motion picture film. ...
- Appellant also filed a special demurrer to that portion of the indictment which alleged that "accused should reasonably have known of the obscene nature of said matter," contending that it violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by removing scienter from the offense. ...
- Appellant filed a motion to suppress the three reels of film from evidence (A. ...
- The evidence for the State consisted of testimony by federal agents and one state officer that they searched the appellant's home pursuant to the federal search warrant for the seizure of wagering paraphernalia. ... The films were then seized, the appellant was placed under arrest and the indictment and conviction followed. ...
- The appellant enumerated as error the overruling of the motion to suppress evidence, the overruling of the general demurrer to the indictment, the holding by the trial court in its rulings on the demurrers that the Act of the General Assembly under which the appellant was tried was constitutional and not in conflict with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and that the evidence did not support the verdict in that the State failed to prove that appellant exhibited the alleged obscene films to any other person. ...
- 78, under which appellant was convicted, was first raised in the trial court by the 3rd ground of the general demurrer (A. ... 64) passed on by the Georgia Supreme Court adversely to appellant in the 4th section of the opinion, (A. ...
6. Kiehm v. Adams (Order Granting Defendant-Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration and Vacating Memorandum Opinion)
- www.state.hi.us
- IAN ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant, and DOES 1-10, Defendants .
- ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION .
- Upon consideration of "Defendant-Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration" filed on October 15, 2003, .
- for Defendant-Appellant. ...
7. Appellant's Application For Leave To Cite Supplemental Authorities
- www.refuseandresist.org
- Appellant's Application For Leave .
- Appellant.
- APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE.
- Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal, through his attorneys, respectfully applies for leave to cite the following new authorities in support of his claims on appeal: .
- In support of his claim that "The Verdict Form Would Have Led Jurors To Believe Unanimity Was Required to Consider a Mitigating Circumstance," Appellant cites Frey v. ...
- In support of his claim that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, Appellant cites (and requests this Court to judicially notice) the following authorities demonstrating "evolving standards of human decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. ...
- Attorneys for Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal.
8. APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR RELIEF IN THE FORM OF A REMAND
- www.refuseandresist.org
- Appellant.
- APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR RELIEF IN THE FORM OF A REMAND .
- Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal, through his attorneys, respectfully applies for relief in the form of a remand to present additional evidence in support of his claims that (1) his death sentence should be vacated due to racial and geographical disparities in the system of capital punishment in Pennsylvania which directly affected his case, and (2) that the Commonwealth impermissibly used peremptory challenges to excuse qualified jurors on account of their race in this case, which was part of a broader pattern of racially-based jury strikes in Philadelphia capital cases. ...
- (Amended PCRA Petition, Claim XIII; Brief for Appellant, Issue XXIV, p. ...
- (See Amended PCRA Petition, Claim IX; Brief for Appellant, Issue XV, p. ...
- Attorneys for Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal.
- (Counsel for Appellant Mumia Abu-Jamal).
9. APPELLANT'S MOTION, 2/26/00
- www.forerunner.com
- APPELLANT'S MOTION, 2/26/00.
- Appellant, vs. ...
- NUMBER 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19B APPELLANT'S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPELLEE'S MOTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM SERVED ON FEBRUARY 17, 2000 .
- Attorney for Appellant UPDATED CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.
- , Plaintiff/Appellant in this case and Plaintiff in Raney v. ...
- , Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant in this case; also for the Plaintiff in Roe, II v. ...
- APPELLANT'S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPELLEES' MOTION & SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM.
- Appellant, Meredith T. ...
- Attorney for Appellant .
10. PRINCIPAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT, JANE ROE, II
- www.forerunner.com
- PRINCIPAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT, JANE ROE, II .
- Appellant,.
- PRINCIPAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT,.
- Attorney for Appellant .
- Raney 1 , Appellant/Plaintiff in Raney v. ...
- Roe, Jane, II, Fictitious name of Appellant/Plaintiff in this case. ...
- , Attorney for Appellant/Plaintiff in this case; also for the Appellant/Plaintiff in Raney v. ...
- Appellant hereby respectfully requests the opportunity to present oral argument on the issues raised in this appeal for the reasons that this case is critical to the protection of women seeking abortions from violence and brutality at the hands of abortionists and their helpers. ...
- Attorney for Appellant.
11. Reference.com/Web Search/appellant
- www.reference.com
- Search results for appellant.
- Powered by appellant - legal definition.
- appellant. ...
- com/appellant.
- Definitions of appellant at Dictionary. ...
- search for "appellant" at:. ...
- Brief of Appellant.
- Said Order of dismissal which the Plaintiff-Appellant appeals from was.
- that he had offered the Plaintiff-Appellant leave to amend in his Reply Brief.
- BBC - History - The Lords Appellant 1386 - 1388.
- Definition of appellant - WordReference. ...
- appellant Definition from dictionary. ... 1, appellant, plaintiff_in_error.
- Appellant Law and Legal Definition - US Legal Forms.
- Appellant is the legal term used for a person or entity that appeals a ruling.
- The party whom the appellant bringd the appeal against is called the.
12. 11-51-47. Supersedeas bond signed by one appellant sufficient.
- www.mscode.com
- Supersedeas bond signed by one appellant sufficient. ...
Other related topics:
Do you have a great site about Appellant? Is
your Appellant site listed here?
Would you like a prefered placement of your site in this directory?
It's easy! First place, the HTML from the box below on your page that
you would like listed in this directory.
Then use our link submission request with
your name, your contact information, and the URL of your site that has
a link to this directory. After we
verify your link to us, we'll make sure your site stays in our directory,
and we'll give it prefered placement here also.
Here is how to make a simple text link to us. Just copy the code in this
box to your website:
We can also develop a custom Guide To The Internet for your site. Please
request your own
custom Guide To The Internet.
This custom Guide To The Internet produced by
Siql. Visit us today, and find out how to get your own
custom guide to the Internet, and how to get your site
listed in our guides.
Copyright 1995-2004 by Siql. All
Rights Reserved.