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.
6 opinions for “Christopher Paul Comstock and Lori Ann Comstock”
Burroughs v. Petronepublic domain
DECISION and ORDER DAVID N. HURD, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The Clerk has sent for review a pro se civil rights complaint filed by plaintiff Lor-cen Burroughs (“Burroughs” or “plaintiff’) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff, who has not paid the statutory filing fee, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.1
State of Maryland v. USDApublic domain
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1338 Doc: 70 Filed: 09/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 41 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1248 STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MINNESOTA; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE; STATE
State of Maryland v. USDApublic domain
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1248 Doc: 98 Filed: 09/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 41 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1248 STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF MINNESOTA; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE; STATE
ACCEPTED 03-14-00717-CV 3677007 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/7/2015 10:35:57 AM
United States v. Arrowhead Refining Co.public domain
829 F.Supp. 1078 (1992) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ARROWHEAD REFINING COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ARROWHEAD REFINING COMPANY, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Rodney A. ANDERSON, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Civ. No. 5-89-0202. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fifth Division. December 21, 1992.
United States v. Arrowhead Refining Co.public domain
ORDER MAGNUSON, District Judge. This matter is before the court on the defendants’ and third-party plaintiffs’ objections to Magistrate Judge McNulty’s Report and Recommendation dated November 10, 1992 granting third party defendant Mobil’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to statute, the court has conducted a de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.1(c). Bas