Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
17 opinions for “Andrus v. Scully, Jr.”
352 B.R. 783 (2006) In re SCULLY'S ALUMINUM CRAFTS, INC., Debtor. Elizabeth G. Andrus, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Scully's Metal Fabrication, Inc., Scully's Aluminum Boats, Inc., Containeraid, Inc. and Elwood Scully, Jr., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 03-52508, Adversary No. 04-5087. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Louisiana. August 10, 2006.
264 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2001) IN RE: ORTHOPEDIC BONE SCREW PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1014)J.T. Bradley and Kathy W. Bradley, Appellants in No. 00-3899Regina M. Luellen and Eurston Luellen, Sr., Appellants in No. 00-3900Randal Jon Uribe, Appellant in No. 00-3901Mitchell H. Walker and Kim S. Walker, Appellants in No. 00-3902Jose Morfin, Appellant in No. 00-3903Mary K. Mullen Schmelter and Kurt Allen Schmelter, Appel
Filed 1/5/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- PLANNING AND CONSERVATION C096304 LEAGUE et al., (Super. Ct. No. Plaintiffs and Appell
Filed 1/25/24 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- PLANNING AND CONSERVATION C096304 LEAGUE et al., (Super.
38 Cal.3d 564 (1985) 699 P.2d 835 214 Cal. Rptr. 424 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 660, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO et al., Defendants and Appellants. Docket No. L.A. 31850. Supreme Court of California. May 13
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF No. 12-55856 CALIFORNIA EX REL. IMPERIAL COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL D.C. No. DISTRICT; IMPERIAL COUNTY AIR 3:09-cv-02233- POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT; AJB-PCL COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; SALLY JEWELL, Secretary of the United States Department
California Ex Rel. Imperial County Air Pollution Control District v. U.S. Department of the Interiorpublic domain
OPINION HURWITZ, Circuit Judge: The Saltón Sea — the largest inland body of water in California — is a creature of accident. In 1905, water from the Colorado River breached an irrigation canal and flooded the then-dry Saltón Basin. After the initial flood, irrigation runoff from the Imperial and Coachella Valleys — supplied by the Colorado River — sus
California ex rel. Imperial County Air Pollution Control District v. U.S. Department of the Interiorpublic domain
ORDER The opinion filed May 19, 2014, and published at 751 F.3d 1113, is amended as follows: At slip opinion page 32, in the fourth and fifth textual sentences in the second full paragraph, Change: “Imperial Irrigation, Imperial County, and the State of California, not the Secretary, will ultimately determine how to allocate the water they receive. If they so choose, they could allocate every acre
Washington Legal v. Massachusetts Barpublic domain
USCA1 Opinion June 3, 1993 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________ No. 92-1775 WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v.
Washington Legal v. Massachusetts Barpublic domain
June 3, 1993 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 92-1775 WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. MASSACHUSETTS BAR FOUNDATION, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this court issued on May 20, 1993, is
Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundationpublic domain
524 U.S. 156 (1998) PHILLIPS et al. v. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION et al. No. 96-1578. United States Supreme Court. Argued January 13, 1998. Decided June 15, 1998. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT *157 *158 Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the
Domingue v. Whirlpool Corporationpublic domain
303 So.2d 813 (1974) Dennis DOMINGUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION et al. (Patrick J. Babineaux, Sr., appealing), Defendant-Appellant. No. 4756. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. November 27, 1974. *814 Fredric G. Hayes, Lafayette, and Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy by Harry McCall, Jr., Ne
BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge. This appeal involves a challenge to the Massachusetts Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (“IOLTA”) program. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims that the IOLTA program violated their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association, and effected a taking of their property in violation of the
497 U.S. 547 (1990) METRO BROADCASTING, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. No. 89-453. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued March 28, 1990. Decided June 27, 1990.[*] CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT *551 Gregory H. Guillot
United States v. Bertolipublic domain
854 F.Supp. 975 (1994) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Richard O. BERTOLI, Defendant. Cr. No. 89-218. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 30, 1994. *976 *977 *978 *979
Town of Irondequoit v. County of Monroepublic domain
Sawyer, Official Referee. This action is to recover, from defendant Monroe county, the unpaid balances, with interest, of the amounts provided for the town of Irondequoit in the annual tax levies of 1931 and 1932, and for certain other incidental relief necessary to effectuate the demands of the plaintiff. It appears that in the county tax levy of 1931 there was provided for the plaintiff the sum of $997,781.
OPINION OF THE COURT REAVLEY, Circuit Judge. This Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for granting clearance to market certain types of pedicle screw fixation devices (referred to generally as bone screws) was dismissed by the District Court pursuant to the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 Appellants contend here that