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 “Ferrari v. U.S. Bank, N.A.”
Firstmerit Bank, N.A. v. Ferraripublic domain
Memorandum Opinion and Order Gary Scott Feinerman, United States District Judge FirstMerit Bank, N.A., brought this suit for mortgage foreclosure and breach of promissory note against Maria Ferrari, Juan Salgado, Robert Ferrari, and 2425 W. Cortland Properties, Inc. (“Cortland Properties”), a corporation of which Robert and Maria are officers. Doc. 1. Defendants answered and counterclaimed, all
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Sansonepublic domain
U.S. Bank N.A. v Sansone (2019 NY Slip Op 07807) U.S. Bank N.A. v Sansone 2019 NY Slip Op 07807 Decided on October 30, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant
Firstmerit Bank, N.A. v. Stave Properties, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MILTON I. SHAD1JR, Senior District Judge. In this action brought by FirstMerit Bank, N.A. (“FirstMerit”), as successor in interest to original mortgagee Midwest Bank and Trust Company, in which First-Merit seeks mortgage foreclosure and other relief against mortgagor Stave Properties, Inc. (“Stave”) and Joseph Betancourt (“Betancourt”) and Robert Ferrari, Sr. (“F
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Malikpublic domain
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Malik (2025 NY Slip Op 03053) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Malik 2025 NY Slip Op 03053 Decided on May 21, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Jud
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Brownpublic domain
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Brown 2026 NY Slip Op 04975 August 12, 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. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., etc., appellant, v Jarvis T. Brown, etc., et al., defendants, Dorothy Larrier, respondent.
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Bindrapublic domain
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Bindra (2023 NY Slip Op 03037) U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Bindra 2023 NY Slip Op 03037 Decided on June 7, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary
Brown v. Ferrari (In re Ferrari)public domain
Janet S. Baer, United States Bankruptcy Judge This matter is before the Court on the adversary complaint filed against Robert J. Ferrari (the "Debtor") by plaintiff David R. Brown, not individually but as the chapter 7 trustee for the Debtor's bankruptcy estate (the "Trustee"). The Trustee objects to the Debtor's discharge pursuant to
Ocampo v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WEXLER, District Judge: Plaintiffs Danny Ocampo and Brette Ocampo f/k/a Brette L. Jones (“Ocampos” or “Plaintiffs”) bring this action in connection with a mortgage loan and note in the amount of $580,000.00 secured by their premises in Long Beach, New York. They assert seven causes of action against the defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) as successor to Washingt
Gerardo Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Borderpublic domain
Case: 18-50977 Document: 00515566402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 16, 2020
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT FERRARI S.p.A., an Italian corporation, Appellant, v. GREGORY ROMANELLI, individually, and TR3 RACING, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellees. No. 4D2024-0261 [January 29, 2025] Appeal
Gianni-Paolo Ferrari v. Ford Motor Companypublic domain
OPINION JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This case raises claims of unlawful employment discrimination — claims that return us to the distinctions our case law draws between the tests governing claims based on direct evidence of discrimination and those based on indirect evidence. In February 2013, Ford Motor Company temporarily bypassed Gianni-Paolo Ferrari
D.R. Horton, Inc.—Birmingham v. Ferraripublic domain
MURDOCK, Justice. D.R. Horton, Inc. — Birmingham (“DR Horton”), filed a verified petition in the Baldwin Circuit Court, pursuant to Rule 27(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., requesting preaction discovery from Peter Ferrari; Peter’s wife, Kimberly Ferrari; Ferrari Capital Partners, LLC; FH Properties, LLC; P6 Holdings, LLC; and Prince 5 Holdings, LLC (collectively “the Ferrari defendants”). The trial court granted the petition. The Ferra
Ferrari v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILLIAMS, Judge. Plaintiffs, the owners of five property tracts in Albuquerque, New Mexico, brought this action for inverse condemnation alleging that their property was constructively taken as a result of the Petroglyph National Monument Establishment Act of 1990. The Act authorized the Government to acquire some 7,160 acres of land to pr
United States v. 2004 Ferrari 360 Modenopublic domain
ORDER VANESSA D. GILMORE, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the claimant Josette Claude’s (“Claimant” or “Claude”) Claim for Seized Property (Instrument No. 9), Plaintiff the United States of America’s (“the Government” or “Plaintiff’) Motion to Strike Claim for Seized Property (Instrument No. 13), and Evens Claude’s Claim for Seized Property (Instrument No. 5). After a careful review
Case: 11-15586 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 1 of 7 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 11-15586 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-00660-TWT
Michael Fisher v. Nissan N.A., Inc.public domain
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0058p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL FISHER, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ │
PER CURIAM: This appeal requires us to consider whether a party may appeal on the merits from a decision in its favor, where a district court found against him as to one issue, nondispositive of the case. We find that, though he may not challenge the District Court’s finding on the merits, he is entitled to vacatur of the portion of the District’s Court’s order adverse to him.
American Home Products Corp. v. Ferraripublic domain
668 S.E.2d 236 (2008) AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION et al. v. FERRARI et al. No. S07G1708. Supreme Court of Georgia. October 6, 2008. Alembik, Fine & Callner, Lowell S. Fine, Leslie J. Suson, King & Spalding, Matthew S. Harman, Robert D. Hays, Jr., Michael R. Powers, Fulbright & Jaworski, Marcy H. Greer, Stephanie A. Smith, Barclay A. Manley, James
Ferrari v. E-RATE CONSULTING SERVICESpublic domain
655 F.Supp.2d 1194 (2009) Shannon FERRARI, Plaintiff, v. E-RATE CONSULTING SERVICES and Jonathan Slaughter, Defendants. Case No. 2:09-cv-49-MEF. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division. September 17, 2009. *1195 Elizabeth Peyton Faulk, Joseph Brady Lewis, Lewis, Bush & Faulk, LLC, Montgomery, AL, for Pla
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-99-00429-CV Donald Ferrari and Ona Jean Ferrari, Appellants v. Citation Securities, Inc., Appe