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.
10 opinions for “Edwin Mitchell Sayers”
762 F.Supp. 675 (1991) C-T OF VIRGINIA, INC., f/k/a Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, Plaintiff, v. EUROSHOE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 90-0043-L. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Lynchburg Division. April 22, 1991. Edward B. Lowry, Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen & Tweel, P.C., Charlottesville, Va., and Harold B
Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, LLCpublic domain
980 So.2d 791 (2008) Ansenio ARIAS and Lorena Arias v. STOLTHAVEN NEW ORLEANS, L.L.C., ABC Insurance Company, Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Inc. a/k/a Stolt-Neilsen S.A., DEF Insurance Company, Certified Coating Inc., GHI Insurance Company, Kenneth R. Hebert, et al. No. 2007-CA-0650. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. March 19, 2008. Rehearing
In re Suspensions of Att'yspublic domain
Cite as 2015 Ark. 200 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS IN RE SUSPENSIONS OF Opinion Delivered May 7, 2015 ATTORNEYS WHO FAILED TO PAY ANNUAL ATTORNEY-LICENSE FEE PER CURIAM On May 14, 2014, we held unconstitutional former Rule VII(C) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar to the extent the former rule provided for the suspension of attorneys
Coleman v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.public domain
MEMORANDUM TRAUGER, District Judge. This case is before the court on Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 124), to which Defendant General Motors Acceptance Corporation (“GMAC”) has responded (Docket No. 209), and the plaintiff has replied (Docket No. 243). Defendant GMAC has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 193),1 to which the plaint
In Re Genetically Modified Rice Litigationpublic domain
666 F.Supp.2d 1004 (2009) In re GENETICALLY MODIFIED RICE LITIGATION. Case No. 406MD1811 CDP. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. October 9, 2009. *1012 Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, St. Louis, MO, pro se. J. Michael Ponder, Phillip J. Barkett, Jr., Cook and Barkett, Cape Girardeau,
In Re Circuit City Stores, Inc.public domain
447 B.R. 475 (2009) In re CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., et al., Debtors. No. 08-35653. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. February 12, 2009. Robin S. Abramowitz, Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville, NY, for *476 Bond Circuit VIII Delaware Business Trust. Angela Sheffler Abreu, McCarter
Sauer v. Town of Gillettpublic domain
Gunter, J. This action by appellant upon obligations of appellee town, tried to the court, resulted in findings for appellees and a judgment in their behalf for costs. *366To review the judgment is this appeal. The facts are: April, 1897, the hoard of trustees of appellee town was authorized by a vote of its qualified electors to construct a system of water works, and
Sauer v. Town of Gillettpublic domain
Gunter, J. This action by appellant upon obligations of appellee town, tried to the court, resulted in findings for appellees and a judgment in their behalf for costs. *366To review the judgment is this appeal. The facts are: April, 1897, the hoard of trustees of appellee town was authorized by a vote of its qualified electors to construct a system of water works, and
In re Circuit City Stores, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al, (the “Debtors,” or “Circuit City”) filed these bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).1 The Debtors’ bankruptcy cases were consolidated for joint administration pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Fed
Fish v. Weatherwaxpublic domain
Benson, J. delivered the opinion of the court. There may he a judgment, for the insufficiency of the declaration or plea, as the case may be, against the party, though there may be a verdict for him. If the party for whom a verdict is found, will not move for judgment, the other party may pray for judgment against himself; but the entry on the record will still be as if the judgment had been on the prayer of the party for whom