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.
11 opinions for “Elena Pascual”
Pascual Madrigal P.L.L.C. D/B/A the Law Offices of Pascual Madrigal v. Commercial IT Solutions, Inc.public domain
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00742-CV PASCUAL MADRIGAL P.L.L.C. d/b/a The Law Offices of Pascual Madrigal, Appellant v. COMMERCIAL IT SOLUTIONS INC.,
Alpha Phi Alpha Senior Citizens Ctr., Inc. v Zeta Zeta Lambda Co., Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 04166 July 1, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Alpha Phi Alpha Senior Citizens Center, Inc., et al., appellants, v Zeta Zeta Lambda
Hurst v. Shukerpublic domain
Hurst v Shuker 2026 NY Slip Op 04755 July 29, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Tashia Hurst, respondent, v William F. Shuker, et al., appellants. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division,
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC2021-1761 ____________ FLORIDIANS AGAINST INCREASED RATES, INC., Appellant, vs. GARY F. CLARK, etc., et al., Appellees. ____________ No. SC2022-0012 ____________
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (2022 NY Slip Op 05127) Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a 2022 NY Slip Op 05127 Decided on September 1, 2022 Appellate Division, Third Department Published
Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc.public domain
534 F.3d 1320 (2008) Adelina GARCIA; Antonio Garcia; Jeronimo Vargas-Vera; Efrain Aguilar; Paulina Aguilar; Adelaida Aguirre; Jose R. Aguirre; Salvador Almanza; Miguel Amaya; Rogelio Andrade; Jesus Anguiano; Efigenia Arana; Jose R. Arana; Ramon Arana; Alma Armendariz; Jorge L. Banda Valadez; Delfino Barragan; Lucia Barragan; Ramon P. Barragan; Holga Benitez; Baltazar Bonilla; Maria Guadalupe Bonilla; Catalina Bustillos; Bernardo Calderon; Etelvina Calder
EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO Queja In re: 2003 TSPR 76 Héctor Collazo Maldonado 159 DPR ____ y Nelson Rivera Cabrera Número del Caso: CP-1998-9 Fecha: 3 de abril de 2003 Oficina del Procurador General: Lcda. Yvonne Casanova Pelosi Procuradora General Auxiliar Abogados de la Parte Querellada: Lcda. M
Pueblo v. Meliá Leónpublic domain
El Juez Asociado Señor Hernández Denton emitió la opinión del Tribunal. Enrique Meliá León, ex Teniente-Coronel de la Policía de Puerto Rico a cargo de la Superintendencia Auxiliar de Tránsito, fue juzgado por tribunal de derecho y hallado culpable por tres (3) delitos de soborno agravado y uno (1) por violación al inciso (c) del Art. 3 de la Ley Núm. 33 de 13 de julio de 1978, según enmendada, conocida como Le
Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc.public domain
BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. A group of employees filed class and collective actions against Tyson Foods, Inc., seeking unpaid wages for time spent on pre- and post-shift activities. After the employees obtained a sizeable verdict and fee award, 1 Tyson unsuccessfully moved for judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, Tys
Granados Navedo v. Rodríguez Estradapublic domain
Opinión disidente del Juez Asociado Señor Negrón García. PARA HACER CUMPLIDA JUSTICIA, AUNQUE MOR-TIFIQUE A ALGUNOS O PAREZCA QUIJOTESCO A OTROS, LAS VERDADES SIEMPRE HAY QUE EXPONER-LAS. Reconocemos los términos vigorosos y críticos de este disenso. Dejamos, sin embargo, al buen discernimiento de los lectores y electores el determinar si los mismos estáu justificados a la luz de las excepciones vislumbradas por
Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc.public domain
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Defendants-appellants Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (collectively, “Tyson”) appeal from the district court’s interlocutory order denying their motion for partial summary judgment. We ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing whether this appeal should be dismissed on the ground that the order appealed from was not final. Tyson argues that we have jurisdiction over the appeal under