Upcoming Week’s Arguments at COA – Oct. 8, 9 & 10, 2007

I missed last weeks argument previews at COA.  There were two case:  one involved a civil case and damages to 9 homes resulting from limestone blasting damage; the other was a criminal suppression hearing on evidence and an anonymous tip.

Here’s the link to the entire monthly calendar for October.

Here are the issues before panels of the COA for week of Oct. 8.  Click on monthly calendar for more information.

  • Criminal/11.42: Claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and witness perjury.
  • Whether the trial court properly overruled a motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in a personal injury/car accident case.
  • After mother of a child died on May 3, 2004, the paternal grandparents of child filed for a judgment of adoption and did not notify the Appellee, paternal grandparent. The paternal grandparent filed a motion for grandparent visitation prior to the final
    adoption. After adoption by the maternal grandparents, Court granted paternal  randparent grandparent visitation. Maternal grandparents who have adopted child argue that the paternal grandparent’s rights have been terminated by virtue of the
  • Dissolution of marriage. Appellant alleges court erred in granting maintenance and in division of property.
  • Civil: Whether waiver of liability signed by Appellant bars personal injury action.
  • Civil: Whether a public road exists across Appellant’s property, giving Appellees access to a state or country road.
  • Watters appeals from a judgment convicting him of first-degree assault. He contends that a discovery violation concerningan eye witness entitled him to a continuance.
  • A dissolution of marriage case alleging abuse of discretion in court’s application of standards and statutes as to maintenance.
  • Justifiable homicide case; Whether police officers used excessive or unnecessary force?
  • REC appeals from the dismissal of its damages complaint against CSX. The trial court ruled that its jurisdiction had been preempted by federal law, in favor of the Surface Transportation Board. REC contends that some of its claims, at least, may
    still be brought in state court.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.