⚖ 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.

7 opinions for “Dennis v. Prog Leasing, L.L.C.”

Supreme Court of Colorado · 2011-12-19 · Published · cited 11× · 270 P.3d 927; 2011 Colo. LEXIS 986; 2011 WL 6318977
Justice HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court. INDEX OF OPINION Introduction and Holding ... keer ea keke aa aka a aaa kes 931 I. ne e 932 IL. HoldiAQ salas aaa k r ee bene k den e e arn k edn a ee de ae e e ed dae ea n d ern ee es 935 A. Standard of Review. lle alr errr kaa rear kee ekle es 985 B.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2023-06-29 · Published · cited 189× · 600 U.S. 181
PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 600 U. S. Part 1 Pages 181–411 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 29, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ
Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · 2015-09-04 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 12-14-00220-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/4/2015 3:01:53 PM
District Court, S.D. New York · 1995-08-04 · Published · cited 51× · 894 F. Supp. 703; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11078; 1995 WL 461913
894 F.Supp. 703 (1995) In re NASDAQ MARKET-MAKERS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. No. 94 Civ. 3996 (RWS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 4, 1995. *704 *705 Fine Kaplan and Black, Philadelphia, PA (Arthur M. Kaplan, of counsel), Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, San Diego, CA (Leonar
United States Court of Federal Claims · 1993-08-27 · Published · cited 4× · 29 Fed. Cl. 396; 39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,564; 1993 U.S. Claims LEXIS 137; 1993 WL 331439
OPINION MOODY R. TIDWELL, III, Judge: On April 17, 1992, the court issued its initial opinion in this case, reported at 25 Cl.Ct. 735 (1992), concluding that plaintiff had failed to prove it had been improperly terminated for default. On April 29, 1992, plaintiff moved to amend or modify the opinion, or for reconsideration and/or a new trial. The motion was premised on arguments that the court had not fou
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2015-01-14 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 3762693 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/14/201
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2015-02-23 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4243321 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS