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 “Dwyer v. Colt”
Texasgulf Inc. v. Colt Electronics Co.public domain
615 F.Supp. 648 (1984) TEXASGULF INC. and Texasgulf Aviation, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. COLT ELECTRONICS CO., INC., Phoenix Aerospace, Inc., the Garrett Corporation, Lockheed Corporation, and the United States of America, Defendants. And Related Actions. Nos. 81 Civ. 7147, 82 Civ. 0816, 82 Civ. 3045, 82 Civ. 3640, 82 Civ. 3912, 82 Civ. 3913, 82 Civ. 4997, 82 Civ. 5278, 82 Civ. 6296, 82 Civ. 6297, 82 Civ. 6459, 83 Civ. 1082, 8
Colt Employees Federal Credit Union v. Lagassiepublic domain
The facts which are the basis of this action, as admitted by demurrer, may be briefly summarized. The defendant Adrien J. Lagassie on June 20, 1969, applied to the plaintiff credit union for a loan for the purpose of purchasing an automobile. On June 30, 1969, the plaintiff loaned Adrien $3500, and he executed a promissory note as well as an instalment loan contract entitled "Security Agreement." Upon default, the plaintiff took possession and sold the 1969 Dodge which Adrien gave as collater
Campbell v. Dwyer Products Corp.public domain
ORDER After being discharged from his temporary welding position, Joe Campbell sued his former employer, Dwyer Products Corp., for racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court granted summary judgment for Dwyer, and we affirm. Background Dwyer manufactures, among other things, kitchen sinks. Joe C
People v. Dwyerpublic domain
—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that defendant *943knowingly and intentionally lied when he testified before the Grand Jury and thus the judgment convicting defendant of perjury in the third degree must be reversed (see, People v Rosano, 69 AD2d 64
Schweizer v. Elox Division of Colt Industriespublic domain
133 N.J. Super. 297 (1975) 336 A.2d 73 HOWARD SCHWEIZER, PLAINTIFF, v. ELOX DIVISION OF COLT INDUSTRIES AND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, v. SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, STATUTORY SUBROGEE OF METEM CORPORATION, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT. STANLEY J. KRAWCZUK, PLAINTIFF, v. ELOX DIVISION OF COLT INDUSTRIES AND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, v.
813 F.2d 543 Susan Winter WOODLING, as Executrix of the Estate of AlbertD. Woodling, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,v.The GARRETT CORPORATION, Colt Electronics Company, PhoenixAerospace, Inc., Lockheed Corporation andTexasgulf Aviation, Inc., Defendants.The GARRETT CORPORATION, Colt Electronics Company, PhoenixAerospace, Inc., and Lockheed Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiffs-Appellees,The Garrett Co
Dwyer v. Wellspublic domain
Haight, J. The question in controversy arises upon the construction of the residuary clause of the will of William Wells, deceased. It is as follows: “ I give, devise and bequeath unto my said wife, Elizabeth H. Wells, all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, of every name and description, wherever the same is or may be located, to have and to hold the same for and during her na
DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge: E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. (“Du-pont”) moves to dismiss as moot its appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Casey, J.) denying Dupont a *46 preliminary and permanent injunction barring INVISTA SA.R.L. and INVI
Woodling v. Garrett Corp.public domain
KEARSE, Circuit Judge: Third-party-defendant Texasgulf, Inc. (“TG” or “TGI”), and defendant-third-party-defendant Texasgulf Aviation, Inc. (“TGA”), appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered in these consolidated actions after a series of jury trials before Gerard L. Goettel, Judge, in favor of plaintiff Susan Winter Woodling (“Woodling”) for $1,142,888,
State Of Washington v. Lovett James Chamberspublic domain
*101 Schindler, J. ¶1 The State charged Lovett James Chambers with murder in the second degree of Michael Travis Hood. Following a seven-week trial, the jury convicted Chambers of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree. Chambers contends the evidence does not support the decision to
Gregory v. Garrett Corp.public domain
589 F.Supp. 296 (1984) Gwendolyn L. GREGORY, as Executrix under the Will of Joseph Morgan Gregory, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. The GARRETT CORPORATION; Colt Electronics Co., Inc.; Phoenix Aerospace, Inc.; and Lockheed Corp., Defendants. The GARRETT CORPORATION and Lockheed Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. TEXASGULF, INC. and Texasgulf Aviation, Inc., Third-Party Defendants. and Related Actions. Nos. 82 Ci
Promise Arizona v. Petersenpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 1 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MI FAMILIA VOTA; VOTO No. 24-3188 LATINO; LIVING UNITED FOR D.C. No. CHANGE IN ARIZONA;
Gregory v. Garrett Corp.public domain
578 F.Supp. 871 (1983) Gwendolyn L. GREGORY, Executrix under the Will of Joseph Morgan Gregory, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. The GARRETT CORPORATION; Colt Electronics Co., Inc.; Phoenix Aerospace, Inc.; and Lockheed Corp., Defendants. The GARRETT CORPORATION and Lockheed Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. TEXASGULF, INC. and TexasGulf Aviation, Inc., Third-Party Defendants. No. 82 Civ. 2316 (GLG).[*]<
02/15/2018 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs October 3, 2017 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ERNEST BUTLER, aka ANTONIO BUTLER Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 15-01445 Lee V. Coffee, Judge ___________________________________
Ben-Aharon v. New York City Saks, LLCpublic domain
OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed without costs, and motions by the defendant and third-party plaintiff New York City Saks, LLC and by the defendant and third-party defendant M.E. Sabosik Associates for summary judgment granted. Plaintiff initially instituted this action against New York City Saks, LLC to recover damages sustained when she slipped and fell o
United States v. Vaello-Maderopublic domain
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1390 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JOSÉ LUIS VAELLO-MADERO, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí, U.S. District Judge]
Antonyuk v. Jamespublic domain
22-2908(L) Antonyuk v. James UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ____________________ August Term, 2022 Argued: March 20, 2023 Decided: December 8, 2023 Remanded by S. Ct.: June 21, 2024 Decided on Remand: October 24, 2024 Docket Nos. 22-2908(L), 22-2972(Con) ____________________ IV
City of Austin v. Clifton Alexander, Bob Acker, Joe Augeri, James Baker, Doug Boes, Brad Ballard, John Banningpublic domain
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00423-CV City of Austin, Appellant v. Clifton Alexander, Rob Acker, Joe Augeri, James Baker, Doug Boes, Brad Ballard, John Banning, Scott Bartell, Edward Baxter, Dan Beard, David Bearden, David Belknap, Mike Bewley, Mikel Borg, David Brietzke, Drew Britcher, Becky Brooks, Kevin Brooks, Malvin Brown, Palmer Buck, Ric
City of Austin v. Clifton Alexander, Bob Acker, Joe Augeri, James Baker, Doug Boes, Brad Ballard, John Banningpublic domain
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00423-CV City of Austin, Appellant v.
State v. Kelleypublic domain
OPINION WADE, Judge. The defendant, Larry Kelley, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. In this appeal, he alleges first that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had the mental capacity to commit a first degree murder; and, secondly, that the trial court erroneously limited the use of a medical report for identification purposes only.