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 “Constance A. Curley”
in the Interest of K.I.B.C., a Childpublic domain
ACCEPTED 14-15-00882-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/28/2015 8:14:08 PM CHRISTOPHER
in the Interest of A.G. and F.G., Childrenpublic domain
ACCEPTED 01-15-00571-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/24/2015 9:45:33 PM CHRIST
OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. Section 468-a of the Judiciary Law requires every resident *35and nonresident attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York to file a biennial registration statement with the administrative office of the courts. A biennial registration fee must be paid at the time the statement is filed. This registration state
Windward Bora v. Brownepublic domain
23-684-cv (L) Windward Bora v. Browne In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________ AUGUST TERM 2023 ARGUED: MARCH 5, 2024 DECIDED: JULY 26, 2024 Docket Nos. 23-684-cv, 23-748-cv WINDWARD BORA LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant–Cross-Appellee,
—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and order of filiation reinstated. Memorandum: Respondent admitted that he was *925the father of the child, and an order of filiation was entered on June 25, 1984. More than seven years later, in July 1991, respondent moved to vacate that order of filiation and for an order directing the child and the parties to submit to a blood tes
Cobell v. Nortonpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION LAMBERTH, District Judge. Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Equal Access to Justice Act Petition for Interim Fees Through the Phase 1.0 Proceeding (“Interim Fee Petition”). Plaintiffs seek fees and expenses in the amount of $14,528,467.21 for them efforts “resolv[ing] issues” central to Phase 1.0 of the case and “set[ting] the stage for future relief.” Cobell v. Norton,
People of Guam v. Paris Christian Reyes Sharpepublic domain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARIS CHRISTIAN REYES SHARPE, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court Case No. CRA23-012 Superior Court Case No. CF0265-23 OPINION
Sonntag v. Papparozzipublic domain
256 F.Supp.2d 320 (2003) Charles SONNTAG and Frank Brown, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mario PAPPAROZZI, individually and in his official capacity; William McCargo, Rolando Gomez-Rivera, Dominic Porrevecchio, Rachel Torres-Chowaniec, Ruby Washington, Joseph Constance, Oscar Doyle, Herberto Collazzo, Lorraine Kulik, Kenneth Connelly, George Yefchek, Laurie Fuchs, Steven Goldberg, Joyce Arcineaco-Krueger
Schmidt v. Gregoriopublic domain
705 So.2d 742 (1993) Sandra Booth SCHMIDT, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. John GREGORIO, et al., Defendant-Appellee. No. 25305-CW. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. October 27, 1993. Rehearing Denied November 24, 1993. B. Woodrow Nesbitt, Jr., Shreveport, for Sandra Booth Schmidt and David Bradley Schmidt. Donald R. Miller, S
Cobell v. Nortonpublic domain
407 F.Supp.2d 140 (2005) Elouise Pepion COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. No. Civ.A. 96-1285(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 19, 2005. *141 *142 *143
Britton v. Bayer Corp.public domain
MEMORANDUM * The Britton Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from the judgment of dismissal entered two years earlier for failure to comply with case management orders in this multidistrict litigation. The Britton Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6) because they did not
Britton v. Bayer Corp.public domain
MEMORANDUM * The Britton Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from the judgment of dismissal entered two years earlier for failure to comply with case management orders in this multidistrict litigation. The Britton Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6) because they did not
Gondek v. Pliskapublic domain
In Lynch v. Springfield Safe Deposit Trust Co., 294 Mass. 170,200 N.E. 914, cited in the majority opinion, the only question was whether there was any evidence of gross negligence. In that case there was evidence that the driver, who had been drinking, drove into the rear of a truck proceeding in the same direction. He was going fifty miles an hour and there were six lights on the rear of the truck. "The road was a two-lan
Snow v. Snowpublic domain
Wenzel, J. (dissenting). Prior to the enactment of section 1171-b of the Civil Practice Act in 1939 (L. 1939, eh. 431, eff. Sept. 1,1939), an independent plenary action could be brought to recover accrued and unpaid alimony which had been awarded in a judgment in an action for divorce or separation (see Swanton v. Curley, 273 N. Y. 325; Van Ness v. Ransom, 215 N. Y. 557; Shepherd v.
Shlomchik v. Richmond 103 Equities Co.public domain
763 F.Supp. 732 (1991) Seymour SHLOMCHIK, a limited partner in Richmond 103 Equities Co., a New York Limited Partnership, for himself and on behalf of the partnership, Plaintiff, v. RICHMOND 103 EQUITIES CO., a New York Limited Partnership, and William S. Hack and Pearl H. Hack, individually and as general partners of Richmond 103 Equities, a New York Limited Partnership, Defendants. No. 84 Civ. 0053 (BN). <
State v. Brownpublic domain
969 P.2d 313 (1998) 126 N.M. 338 1998-NMSC-037 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matt BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Smith, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 23674, 23748. Supreme Court of New Mexico. September 16, 1998. Rehearing Denied November 5, 199
Cassas v. Cassaspublic domain
73 Wyo. 147 (1954) 276 P.2d 456 FLORA B. CASSAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. RAY R. CASSAS, Defendant and Respondent. FLORA B. CASSAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. RAY R. CASSAS, Defendant and Respondent. Nos. 2630 and 2631 Supreme Court of Wyoming November 16, 1954 *152 For the plaintiff and
Kosich v. Poultrymen's Service Corp.public domain
Complainants filed their bill to enjoin the defendant, Poultrymen's Service Corporation, from operating its poultry food manufacturing and processing plant in such a manner as to produce and disseminate meal, dust, dirt, foul odors, noises and vibrations, which complainants charge have constituted and do constitute a private nuisance injurious to them personally and to their property. The complainants, husband and wife, and the defendant corporation own immediately adjoining properties
Maxwell v. N. O. Ry. & Lt. Co.public domain
CHARLES F. CLAIBORNE, JUDGE. This is a damage suit arising from an automobile accident. The plaintiff alleges that on February 8th, 1919 at about 12:30 of the day, he was seated on the top of a pile of lumber upon a trailer attached to a motor-truck owned and operated by his employer John B. Mertzweiler; that while the said Mertzweiler was in the act of crossing Magazine Street, at the intersection of Fouch
in the Interest of S. R.- M. C.public domain
ACCEPTED 01-15-00556-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/21/2015 10:14:05 PM CHRIST