⚖ 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 “Doe v. Andrews”

Doe v. Andrewspublic domain
District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2017-08-03 · Published · cited 8× · 275 F. Supp. 3d 880
MEMORANDUM CURTIS L. COLLIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant Joseph McGregor Andrews (“Andrews”) and Plaintiff Jane Doe1 (“Doe”) in this diversity action arising out of an alleged sexual assault at a college fraternity house.2 Andrews moves for summary judgment on the causes of acti
Crichlow v. Andrewspublic domain
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2023-03-16 · Published · cited 14× · 987 N.W.2d 666; 2023 ND 45
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT MARCH 16, 2023 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT ST
Andrews v. Andrewspublic domain
Prince William County Circuit Court · 2010-04-14 · Published · cited 0× · 80 Va. Cir. 279; 2010 Va. Cir. LEXIS 55
By Judge William D. Hamblen This matter was taken under advisement by the court after oral argument was received March 29, 2010, in support of and opposing the pleas in bar previously interposed by the defendants Doe and Cheema. The pleas in bar are similar in that both are posited upon the assertion that both defendants had arrived at separate accords with the plaintiff regarding the cause of action pleaded herein. The defe
Kelley v. Andrewspublic domain
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017-09-05 · Published · cited 0× · 803 S.E.2d 702; 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 727; 2017 WL 3863361
AFFIRMED.
Kelley v. Andrewspublic domain
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016-01-19 · Published · cited 1× · 781 S.E.2d 717; 2016 WL 223919; 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 74
Case Reported Without Published OpinionVacated and Remanded.
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2019-01-15 · Published · cited 10× · 2019 ND 23; 921 N.W.2d 403
Crothers, Justice. [¶1] Jane Doe appeals from a district court order continuing her treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital. The district court found Jane Doe mentally ill, a person requiring treatment, and that no alternative treatment was appropriate. We conclude under our standard of review that the finding Jane Doe is a mentally ill person requiring treatment is not clearly err
Apodaca v. Doepublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2019-10-07 · Published · cited 0× · 140 S. Ct. 256; 205 L. Ed. 2d 153
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2017-12-07 · Published · cited 3× · 2017 ND 277; 904 N.W.2d 40
Per Curiam. [¶ 1] Jane Doe appeals from the district court’s order entered on November 2, 2017, for continuing treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital for a period not to exceed one year. Doe argues the district court erred in finding her mentally ill and a person requiring treatment. We conclude the court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing
Doe v. Casinopublic domain
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2019-04-11 · Published · cited 0× · 381 F. Supp. 3d 425
Slomsky, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Michelle Doe,1 an African-American female who identifies as a lesbian, brings this employment discrimination suit against her former employers, Parx Casino, Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment, Inc., and Greenwood Table Games Services, Inc. ("Defendants"),2 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rig
Ellis v. Doepublic domain
Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2019-03-06 · Published · cited 1× · 924 N.W.2d 258
CHUTICH, Justice. *259Appellant Andrew Ellis initiated eviction proceedings against his tenant, John Doe, for nonpayment of rent.1 The tenant raised a common-law habitability defense, asserting that Ellis had breached the covenants of habitability. The district court found for the tenant and ordered retroactive and
Doe v. Bellpublic domain
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2019-02-05 · Published · cited 0× · 367 F. Supp. 3d 966
RODNEY W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *969Plaintiff Grand Juror Doe (Juror)2 seeks a declaratory judgment that Missouri laws criminalizing Juror's disclosure of information about her experience as a juror on a State of Missouri grand jury are unconstitutional as applied. Juror alleges that if these Missouri
Doe v. Mattispublic domain
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018-11-30 · Published · cited 3× · 344 F. Supp. 3d 16
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Stay the Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal. Defendants request a stay of the Court's October 30, 2017, preliminary injunction, which prevents Defendants from enforcing a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Defendants ask that the stay be granted pending any potential, future proceedings in the United States Supreme
Doe v. Mattispublic domain
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018-08-24 · Published · cited 0× · 322 F. Supp. 3d 92
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge On July 26, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued a statement via Twitter announcing that "the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military." A formal Presidential Memorandum followed on August 25, 2017. Before the 2017 Presidential Memorandum, the Department of Defense had announced that openly transgende
Doe v. Trumppublic domain
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018-08-06 · Published · cited 0× · 319 F. Supp. 3d 539
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge *540On July 26, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued a statement via Twitter announcing that "the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military." This lawsuit followed. On October 30, 2017, the Court issued a preliminary injunction, the effect
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2023-05-09 · Published · cited 1× · 293 A.3d 439; 2023 ME 28
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2023 ME 28 Docket: Kno-22-276 Submitted On Briefs: January 25, 2023 Decided: May 9, 2023 Panel: MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ. PAT DOE v. THOMAS LINDAHL MEAD, J. [¶1] Thomas Lindahl appeals from a
Ellis v. Doepublic domain
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2018-05-07 · Published · cited 0× · 915 N.W.2d 24
REYES, Judge Appellant-landlord argues that the district court erred in affirming the housing-court referee's determination that part of respondent-tenant's rent was not due because *26tenant did not follow the procedures set forth in Minn. Stat. § 504B.385 (2016) before asserting a habitability defense to landlord's eviction action. We affirm.
Doe v. Trumppublic domain
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018-08-06 · Published · cited 1× · 315 F. Supp. 3d 474
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge On July 26, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued a statement via Twitter announcing that "the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military." A formal Presidential Memorandum followed on August 25, 2017. Before the 2017 Presidential Memorandum, the Department of Defense had announced that openly transgende
Doe v. Holcombpublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018-03-02 · Published · cited 51× · 883 F.3d 971
Wood, Chief Judge, dissenting. This is an unusual case, but in the end it is not one that we should bar from adjudication. I therefore dissent from the majority's conclusion that John Doe's suit to change his name cannot move forward in its present form. As the majority notes, Doe is a Mexican national who is lawfully in the United States after a grant of asylum. As a transgender male, he wants to change his name from his birth-nam
Jordan v. Doepublic domain
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2017-12-13 · Published · cited 0× · 421 S.C. 586; 809 S.E.2d 60
LOCKEMY, C.J.: In this action pursuant to the uninsured motorist statute, Willie Jordan appeals the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment to Jane Doe as a result of Jordan’s failure to comply with section 38-77-170(3) of the South Carolina Code (2015). We reverse. FACTS On March 13, 2014, Willie Jordan filed a Jane Doe
District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2017-01-10 · Published · cited 0× · 228 F. Supp. 3d 1340; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3518; 2017 WL 85520
OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Defendant Autoliv Japan, Ltd.’s (“Autoliv”) Motion for Summary Judgment [224]. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts 1. Background This product liability action arises from the April 12, 2013, death of Micah Lee Andrews. Mr. And