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.
20 opinions for “CT Drives, LLC”
Nilhan Developers, LLC v. Westplan Investors Acquisitions, LLC (In re Bay Circle Props., LLC)public domain
Wendy L. Hagenau U.S., Bankruptcy Court Judge This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Westplan Investors Acquisitions, LLC ("Westplan") and Accent Cumberland Apartments, LP ("Accent") (collectively, "Defendants") [Docket No. 4]. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1334
CCNO McDonough 16, LLC v. R4 MCNO Acquisition, LLCpublic domain
Conclusion The judgment of the district court order is affirmed. AFFIRMED
Slater Numismatics, LLC v. Driving Force, LLCpublic domain
Opinion by Judge TERRY. € 1 Plaintiff, Slater Numismaties, LLC, appeals the trial court's summary judgment in favor of defendant, Driving Force, LLC, doing business as ANACS (ANACS). The court granted summary judgment for ANACS on Plaintiffs claims for intentional interference with contractual relations and unjust enrichment. It also entered an order awarding costs to ANACS. We reverse and remand for further pr
2305 Edgewater Drive, LLC v. Colonnade Retail, LLCpublic domain
AFFIRMED.
White v. Fuel Plus, LLCpublic domain
PERRET, Judge. lain this workers’ compensation case, plaintiff/appellee, Jackie White, was injured when boiling water and toxic cleaning chemicals spilled on her feet. She was working for defendant employer, Fuel Plus Too, LLC (“Fuel Plus”). Thereafter, Ms. White’s treating physician requested authorization for a surgery involving a bilateral trans metatarsal amputation of her feet, with flaps, inpatien
2305 Edgewater Drive, LLC v. Colonnade Retail, LLCpublic domain
AFFIRMED.
Adp, LLC v. Nicole Rafferty Adp, LLCpublic domain
KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. I. Introduction In this appeal, we must determine whether certain restrictive covenants, which high-performing employees enter into as a condition of a stock award, constitute an impermissible restraint on trade under New Jersey law. We conclude that these restrictive covenants are not unenforceable in their entirety be
Abpaymar, LLC v. Green Tree Servicing, LLCpublic domain
Dismissed.
Abpaymar, LLC v. Green Tree Servicing, LLCpublic domain
Dismissed.
Savoie v. Pinto Drive LLCpublic domain
Aff. Cir. Ct. (Palm Beach)
Manns v. SB Re Props., LLCpublic domain
Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Judge Introduction At issue in this case is whether under Section 443.055, RSMo. (2000), a future advance security instrument secures both principal up to the face amount of the loan as well as any excess interest generated on that principal. SB RE Properties, LLC (SB RE) appeals the judgment of the trial court on an interpleader action that awarded $20,000 in the trial court's registr
Mero Custom Const. LLC v. AM 280 Sierra Drive, LLCpublic domain
App.dism. Cir. Ct. (Miami-Dade)
Mersin, LLC v. Jacksonpublic domain
ORDER PER CURIAM Alan and Sharon Jackson appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of their neighbor, Mersin, in this land dispute. Finding no error, we affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for
Crosskey Architects, LLC v. POKO Partners, LLCpublic domain
*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr
Douglas Elliman LLC v. 21-45 44th Drive LLCpublic domain
The provision of the agreement at issue states, “[A]dvances shall be fully reimbursed by [plaintiff] from the Commissions paid by [defendant] ... at a rate of twenty percent ... of [plaintiff]’s portion ... of each Commission . . . until [defendant] is fully reimbursed.” The motion court properly found that the requirement that defendants be “fully reimbursed” was qualified by the clause “from the Commissions ... at a rate of twenty percent ... of [plaint
Douglas Elliman LLC v. 21-45 44th Drive LLCpublic domain
The provision of the agreement at issue states, “[A]dvances shall be fully reimbursed by [plaintiff] from the Commissions paid by [defendant] ... at a rate of twenty percent ... of [plaintiff]’s portion ... of each Commission . . . until [defendant] is fully reimbursed.” The motion court properly found that the requirement that defendants be “fully reimbursed” was qualified by the clause “from the Commissions ... at a rate of twenty percent ... of [plaint
LFMC Enters., LLC v. Bakerpublic domain
Michael Massengale, Justice This is a lawsuit over a bar fight. The parties' brawl continues in the form of an interlocutory appeal authorized by the Texas Citizens Participation Act. After the plaintiff, Gary Baker, pleaded statutory nuisance claims, the owners of the premises moved to dismiss those claims on the theory that they were based on, related to, or in response to their exercise of the "right of association."
Fustolo v. 50 Thomas Patton Drive, LLCpublic domain
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. We hold in this case that a claim to payment that 50 Thomas Patton Drive, LLC (“Patton Drive”) holds against Steven Fustolo (“Fustolo”) “is not contingent as to liability or the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount” within the meaning of section 303(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1). We therefore affirm the decision o
Garage Solutions, LLC v. Personpublic domain
EZELL, Judge. liThe Plaintiffs, Garage Solutions, LLC and Monkey Bars Shelving of Greater Baton Rouge, LLC appeal a trial court judgment which dismissed their claims against the Defendant, Monty J. Person, for reimbursement of training expenses. Mr. Person signed two contracts agreeing that he would reimburse the plaintiffs for training at two locations if he failed to remain employed for one year. The plaintiffs claim that
Alico, LLC v. Somerspublic domain
*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr