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.
13 opinions for “Burdette v. Apple Card”
Weber v. Fujifilm Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc.public domain
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge. On July 21, 2010, Plaintiff John J. Weber filed a Third Amended Complaint against FujiFilm Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc. (“FMSU”), Hiroaki Tada, FujiFilm Holdings American Corporation (“HLUS”), FujiFilm Holdings Corporation (“FH”),1 and FujiFilm Corporation claiming a variety of causes of ac
Boucher v. 111 East Chestnut Condominium Ass'npublic domain
Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Illinois Official Reports Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Nuness v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.public domain
JEROME B. SIMANDLE, U.S. District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Tyshanna Nuness ("Plaintiff"), filed this law suit against her previous employer, Simon & Schuster, Inc. ("Defendant"), wholly owned by CBS Corporation (collectively "Defendants"), as well as John Does 1-100 and ABC Corps 1-100, alleging racial harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliatory discharge under the New Jersey Law A
Barsky v. METRO KITCHEN & BATH, INC.public domain
(2008) Eugenie BARSKY, Khalid M. Ali, Tejinder Singh, Alberto Gonzalez, and Meleca Durakovic, Plaintiffs, v. METRO KITCHEN & BATH, INC., Metropolitan Kitchen & Bath, LLC, Steven A. Rutstein, and Lori Weber Rutstein, Defendants. No. 05 C 6016. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. November 24, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
In Re Mazonpublic domain
368 B.R. 906 (2007) In re Bernard C. MAZON and Jane I. Mazon, Debtors. No. 9:05-BK-04213-MGW. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Ft. Myers Division. May 11, 2007. *907 Christian B. Felden, Felden and Felden, Naples, FL, for Debtors. MEMORANDUM DECISION ON TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO SURCHARGE DEBTORS' EXEMPT PROPERTY
A.J.P. Oil Company, LLC D/B/A Grapeland Fuel & BBQ, and Andrew J. Patton v. Velvin Oil Company, Inc.public domain
ACCEPTED 06-15-00061-cv SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 10/26/2015 9:54:40 PM
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.public domain
449 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 99-2496(GK). United States Distri
Andresen v. Statepublic domain
24 Md. App. 128 (1975) 331 A.2d 78 PETER C. ANDRESEN v. STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 152, September Term, 1974. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Decided January 10, 1975. *133 The cause was argued before MORTON, MOYLAN and POWERS, JJ. Philip J. Hirschkop, Peter C. Andresen and Frank W. Mars
ACCEPTED 12-15-00005CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 1/14/2015 10:02:33 AM
Wallace v. Statepublic domain
Carter, J.: On January 24, 1898, the County Solicitor for Escambia county filed in the Criminal Court of Record of that county an information charging that Pat McHugh, as mayor of the city of Pensacola, and Ed. A. Wallace, as marshal of said city, on the 8th day of August, 1897, did verbally threaten to accuse Marie Anderson of an offence against the code of ordinances of the, city of Pensacola, and did then and there, with the
ACCEPTED 15-25-00120-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/16/2025 11:54 AM No. 15-25-000120-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
N0. 01-14-01004-CV IN THE FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS FIRST COURT OF APPEAL HOUSTON, TEXAS AT HOUSTON 10/22/2015 4:44:20 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE ___________________________ Clerk Kevin CAMPBELL,
Smith's Adm'r v. Charlton's Adm'rpublic domain
DANIEL, J. The judgment upon which the decree sought to be reversed is founded, was rendered in the year 1802. No steps appear to have been taken to enforce the judgment until the institution of this suit in the year 1840. Thomas Smith the intestate of the appellant William P. Smith, in his answer to the bill, set up two defences, to wit, the statute of limitations, and the presumption of satisfaction arising