⚖ 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.

20 opinions for “Corey J. Tower”

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2024-03-18 · Published · cited 0×
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12100 COMMONWEALTH vs. JULIE A. COREY. Worcester. Decembe
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2023-12-14 · Published · cited 5× · 679 S.W.3d 358; 2023 Ark. 190
Cite as 2023 Ark. 190 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-22-619 Opinion Delivered: December 14, 2023 COREY MCCULLON APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 16JCR-19-1533] V. HONORABLE RA
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2023-03-07 · Published · cited 0×
FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., GOBEIL and LAND, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules March 7, 2023
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2014-07-31 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 17, 2013 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. COY J. COTHAM, JR., also known as CORY J. COTHAM Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2010-C-2636 Cheryl A. Blackburn, Judge No. M2012-01150-CCA-R3-CD - Filed July 31, 2014 Following a jury trial, the defendan
District Court, M.D. Florida · 2008-03-14 · Published · cited 5× · 540 F. Supp. 2d 1233; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21440; 2008 WL 762268
(2008) JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. CIBA VISION CORPORATION, Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff. Nos. 3:05-cv-135-J-32TEM, 3:06-cv-301-J-32TEM. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. March 14, 2008. CORRECTED MARKMAN ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge. <
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2013-05-01 · Published · cited 0×
THIRD DIVISION ANDREWS, P. J., DILLARD and MCMILLIAN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. (Court of Appeals Rule 4 (b) and Rule 37 (b), February 21, 2008) http://www.gaappeals.us/rule
Superior Court of Delaware · 2025-03-05 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE FERDELL F. HARVEY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N24M-03-028 ) TYRONE GARRETT, Director of ) Wilmington Housing Authority, ) SANDI ROSMINI, YVETTE ) LOGAN, BETTY B. PINKETT,
State v. Spruellpublic domain
Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2019-04-10 · Published · cited 0× · 268 So. 3d 397
PITMAN, J. Defendants Brittany Spruell and Corey R. Spann, Jr., were each convicted of second degree cruelty to juveniles and sentenced to 40 years at hard labor. They appeal their respective convictions and sentences. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS On November 24, 2015, the state filed a bill of information charging Spruell with one count of second degree cruelty to
State v. Spruellpublic domain
Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2019-04-10 · Published · cited 1× · 268 So. 3d 397
PITMAN, J. Defendants Brittany Spruell and Corey R. Spann, Jr., were each convicted of second degree cruelty to juveniles and sentenced to 40 years at hard labor. They appeal their respective convictions and sentences. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS On November 24, 2015, the state filed a bill of information charging Spruell with one count of second degree cruelty to
Massachusetts Superior Court · 2014-10-09 · Published · cited 0× · 32 Mass. L. Rptr. 335
Kane, Robert J., J. INTRODUCTION Before the court is the defendant’s motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to suppress historical cell site location information (“CSLI”) obtained by the Commonwealth pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §2703(d) (the “SCA”). The defendant argues that the recent Supreme Judicial Court case, Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (2014), re
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020-03-11 · Published · cited 6× · 181 A.D.3d 659; 121 N.Y.S.3d 324; 2020 NY Slip Op 1604
Hoppe v Imperial Towers Assoc. (2020 NY Slip Op 01604) BODY { font-family : "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-size : larger; } P { line-height: 150%; text-indent: 2em } Hoppe v Imperial Towers Assoc. 2020 NY Slip Op 01604
Ohio Supreme Court · 2015-11-03 · Published · cited 48× · 2015 Ohio 4525; 144 Ohio St. 3d 243; 41 N.E.3d 1233
Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This is an appeal of a judgment in a mandamus case challenging the Industrial Commission’s decision to grant an additional workers’ compensation award for the employer’s violation of a specific safety requirement ("VSSR”). Relator-appellant, Armstrong Steel Erectors, Inc., contends that the commission abused its di
Wilson v. PBM, LLCpublic domain
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021-02-03 · Published · cited 1× · 2021 NY Slip Op 00593
Wilson v PBM, LLC (2021 NY Slip Op 00593) Wilson v PBM, LLC 2021 NY Slip Op 00593 Decided on February 3, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Christopher, J. Published by New
Wilson v. PBM, LLCpublic domain
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021-02-03 · Published · cited 1× · 2021 NY Slip Op 00593
Wilson v PBM, LLC (2021 NY Slip Op 00593) Wilson v PBM, LLC 2021 NY Slip Op 00593 Decided on February 3, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Christopher, J., J. Published by
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-05-18 · Published · cited 6× · 2010 ND 95; 782 N.W.2d 662; 2010 N.D. LEXIS 96; 2010 WL 1958862
782 N.W.2d 662 (2010) 2010 ND 95 Corey BOTNER, individually and as the father and natural guardian of D.B., a minor, Plaintiff and Appellant v. BISMARCK PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellee v. Child, Inc., d/b/a Early Childhood Learning Center, Third-Party Defendant. No. 20090337. Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Massachusetts Superior Court · 2013-04-01 · Published · cited 1× · 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 68
Kane, Robert J., J. Corey Princiotta (“Princiotta”) faces indictments charging him with armed robbery and first-degree murder. The indictments arise out of a June 20, 2009, fatal shooting of John Martin (“Martin”). Martin died while attempting to stop an armed robbeiy being committed at the Petro-Mart, located at 171 Coggeshall Street, New Bedford, Massachusetts. Princiotta now challenges the legality of a July
Ohio Supreme Court · 2017-12-28 · Published · cited 52× · 2017 Ohio 9233; 93 N.E.3d 977; 152 Ohio St. 3d 155
Per Curiam. *155 {¶ 1} Appellant, Ohio Paperboard ("OP"), challenges appellee Industrial Commission's award of additional compensation for violation of a specific safety requirement ("VSSR"). The commission determined that OP violated Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-05(C)(2), (C)(4), and (D)(1), whic
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023-07-28 · Published · cited 3× · 194 N.Y.S.3d 649; 218 A.D.3d 1380; 2023 NY Slip Op 04084
Matter of Hudson v Town of Orchard Park Zoning Bd. of Appeals (2023 NY Slip Op 04084) Matter of Hudson v Town of Orchard Park Zoning Bd. of Appeals 2023 NY Slip Op 04084 Decided on July 28, 2023 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Publish
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017-04-19 · Published · cited 13× · 2017 NY Slip Op 2963; 149 A.D.3d 898; 53 N.Y.S.3d 325
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Rosemary E. Davis and Corey Davis appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Santorelli, J.), dated September 25, 2014, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against" them and to strike their answer, and denied their cross moti