⚖ 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.

3 opinions for “Earskine v. United States”

United States Court of Military Appeals · 1992-08-14 · Published · cited 96× · 35 M.J. 4; 1992 CMA LEXIS 150; 1992 WL 192366
SULLIVAN, Chief Judge (concurring): I join the principal opinion today in its decision not to overturn that portion of United States v. Allen, 33 M.J. 209 (CMA 1991), concerning the reduction in grade and pay of court-martialed retired members. However, I am not adverse to revisiting this issue in a Navy case. As for appellant, I think that, as a matter of constitutional law and codal intent, he is ent
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2013-11-25 · Published · cited 18× · 2013 ND 218; 840 N.W.2d 92; 2013 N.D. LEXIS 224; 2013 WL 6157992
SANDSTROM, Justice. [¶ 1] Earl and Harold Van Sickle (“Van Sickles”) appeal and Hallmark & Associ *96 ates, Inc., Frank Celeste, William R. Austin, Phoenix Energy, Bobby Lankford, and Earskine Williams (“Interest Holders”), and Missouri Breaks, LLC, cross-appeal from an amended judgment holding M
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2008-01-22 · Published · cited 15× · 2008 ND 12; 744 N.W.2d 532; 167 Oil & Gas Rep. 312; 2008 N.D. LEXIS 13; 2008 WL 170090
2008 ND 12 Earl R. Van Sickle and Harold R. Van Sickle, Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Hallmark & Associates, Inc., Frank Celeste, William R. Austin, Phoenix Energy, Bobby Lankford and Earskine Williams, collectively known as "Interest Holders" NEWCO, and their successors in interest, Missouri Breaks, LLC, Defendants and Appellees. No. 20070154 Supreme Court of North Dakota.