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 “Ford v. Skip Dunn Investments”
Lexington Insurance Company v. Cindy Smithpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEXINGTON INSURANCE No. 22-35784 COMPANY; HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW D.C. No. YORK; HALLMARK SPECIALTY 3:21-cv-05930- INSURANCE COMPANY; ASPEN DGE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; ASPEN INSURANCE UK LTD; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT OPINION LLOYD'S, LONDON AND LONDON MARKET COMPANIES SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. PJ193647; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
2025 IL App (1st) 232353 No. 1-23-2353 Opinion filed March 5, 2025 Third Division ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
Matthew Thomas v. UBS AGpublic domain
POSNER, Circuit Judge. The three appellants are the named plaintiffs in a class action suit that seeks damages from UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank, which specializes in managing the assets of wealthy persons from all over the world. Federal jurisdiction is based on the alienage branch of the diversity jurisdiction. The parties have not made clear the so
Doris Keeton v. Morningstar, Incorppublic domain
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Doris Keeton filed an employment discrimination suit against her employer, Morningstar, Inc., alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Keeton failed to file a timely response to Morningstar’s motion for summary judgment, and the court granted judgment in favor of Mornings
Bldg. Ctr., Inc. v. Carter Lumber, Inc.public domain
Bldg. Ctr., Inc. v. Carter Lumber, Inc., 2017 NCBC 83. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG 16 CVS 4186 THE BUILDING CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFE
FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.public domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, No. 19-16122 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 5:17-cv-00220- LHK QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, A Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant, OPINION SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR IN
FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.public domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, No. 19-16122 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 5:17-cv-00220- LHK QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, A Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant, OPINION SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR IN
CARNES, Circuit Judge: In the early morning hours of December 17, 1995, Robert Wayne Holsey robbed a convenience store in Milledgeville, Georgia, and fled. Minutes later his car was stopped by Baldwin County Deputy Sheriff Will Robinson. The deputy, who was twenty-six years old, approached the vehicle. Holsey shot him dead. Fourteen months later, in February of 1997, a jury convicted Holsey of malice murder and armed robbery
RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Ass'npublic domain
641 F.Supp.2d 913 (2009) REALNETWORKS, INC., a Washington Corporation; and Realnetworks Home Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiffs and Counter-defendants, v. DVD COPY CONTROL ASSOCIATION, Inc., a Delaware nonprofit corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Paramount Pictures Corp., a Delaware corporation; Sony Pictures Enter., Inc., a Delaware corporation; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., a Delaware corpora
Marvin L. Warner v. Rex A. Zent, Wardenpublic domain
997 F.2d 116 Marvin L. WARNER, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Rex A. ZENT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-4339. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. Argued April 29, 1993.Decided June 7, 1993.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 26, 1993. Michael R. Barrett, Cincinnati, OH, Timothy K. Ford
PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 600 U. S. Part 1 Pages 181–411 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 29, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Commercepublic domain
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: *513TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND A. History and Purposes of the Census...519 B. The Secretary's Authority Over the Census...521 C. The History of a Citizenship Question on the Census...524 D. Test
Animal Science Products, Inc. v. China National Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.public domain
702 F.Supp.2d 320 (2010) ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHINA NATIONAL METALS & MINERALS IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. Civ. 05-4376(GEB). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. April 1, 2010. *325 Robert A. Magnanini, Esq., Stone and Magnanini, LLP, Richard E. Donovan, E
East Texas Medical Center Gilmer v. Birder Porterpublic domain
ACCEPTED 12-14-00220-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/4/2015 3:01:53 PM
ACCEPTED 03-15-00409-CV 8019009 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/30/2015 4:14:06 PM
Harris, Roderickpublic domain
WR-80,923-02 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 6/1/2015 2:03:46 PM Accepted 6/1/2015 2:28:04 PM
in Re George Green and Garlan Greenpublic domain
ACCEPTED 03-14-00725-CV 3737749 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/12/2015 4:19:03 PM
In Re Alien Children Education Litigationpublic domain
501 F.Supp. 544 (1980) In re ALIEN CHILDREN EDUCATION LITIGATION. MDL No. 398. United States District Court, S. D. Texas, Houston Division. July 21, 1980. *545 *546 *547 *548 Peter A. Schey, Los Angeles, Cal., Isaias Torres, Ant
Phippen v. Durhampublic domain
MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not
Phippen v. Durhampublic domain
MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not