⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

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.

3 opinions for “Clark v. Welspun Tubular LLC”

Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-05-31 · Published · cited 0× · 2017 Ark. App. 350; 523 S.W.3d 384; 2017 Ark. App. LEXIS 377
Robert J. Gladwin, Judge, dissenting. I concur with the majority that the Commission retains jurisdiction to determine the dual-employment issue and that Welspun Pipes, Inc., is a dual employer of appellant. However, I dissent from the holding that substantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that Welspun Pipes, Inc., and Welspun Tubular, LLC, are a single entity. I
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2024-06-28 · Published · cited 1× · 106 F.4th 706
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-2682 ___________________________ In re: Sanford Law Firm; Josh Sanford lllllllllllllllllllllAppellants ____________ Appeal from United States District Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2021-07-15 · Published · cited 40× · 5 F.4th 1341
Case: 20-1857 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ STUPP CORPORATION, A DIVISION OF STUPP BROS., INC., WELSPUN TUBULAR LLC USA, IPSCO TUBULARS, INC., MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee HYUNDAI STEEL COM