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.
14 opinions for “Gabriel G Owens and Myra K Owens”
14‐1963(L) Kirschenbaum, et al. v. 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term 2015 (Argued: November 18, 2015 Decided: July 20, 2016)
264 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2001) IN RE: ORTHOPEDIC BONE SCREW PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1014)J.T. Bradley and Kathy W. Bradley, Appellants in No. 00-3899Regina M. Luellen and Eurston Luellen, Sr., Appellants in No. 00-3900Randal Jon Uribe, Appellant in No. 00-3901Mitchell H. Walker and Kim S. Walker, Appellants in No. 00-3902Jose Morfin, Appellant in No. 00-3903Mary K. Mullen Schmelter and Kurt Allen Schmelter, Appel
ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV
ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV
Couch v. Jabepublic domain
737 F.Supp.2d 561 (2010) William R. COUCH, Plaintiff, v. John JABE, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 7:09CV00434. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division. September 1, 2010. *562 William R. Couch, Craigsville, VA, pro se. William W. Muse, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Defendant
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iranpublic domain
SACK, Circuit Judge: In this litigation, judgment creditors of the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) attempt to execute on $1.68 billion in bond proceeds allegedly owned by Iran’s central bank. The Supreme Court has instructed that in an execution proceeding concerning a foreign sovereign’s assets, any defense predicated on foreign sovereign immunity must rise or fall on the text of the Foreign Sovereign
Akee v. Dow Chemical Co.public domain
272 F.Supp.2d 1112 (2003) Linda AKEE et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. 00-CV-382BMK. United States District Court, D. Hawai`i. July 21, 2003. *1113 *1114 *1115 *1116
WESLEY, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellees (“Plaintiffs”) are direct or indirect victims of terrorist acts linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”), against which they hold unsatisfied money judgments. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to enforce these judgments against Defendants-Appellants Alavi Foundation and 650 Fifth Avenue Company (together, “Defendants”),1 pursuant to the Forei
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iranpublic domain
15‐0690 Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 August Term, 2015 4 (Argued: June 8, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2017*) 5
Daniel Campbell v. City of Los Angelespublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL CAMPBELL; et al, * No. 15-56990 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 2:04-cv-08592- AG-AJW CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. CESAR MATA,
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iranpublic domain
515 F.Supp.2d 25 (2007) Deborah D. PETERSON, Personal Representative of the Estate of James C. Knipple (Dec.), et al., Plaintiffs, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendants. Civil Action Nos. 01-2094 (RCL), 01-2684(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 7, 2007. *26
Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (2019 NY Slip Op 03883) Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. 2019 NY Slip Op 03883 Decided on May 16, 2019 Appellate Division, Third Department
Akee v. Dow Chemical Co.public domain
ORDER GRANTING SHELL’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART¡ DOW’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING DOLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT TV KURREN, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court, pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is Shell Oil Company’s, Shell Petroleum Inc.’s, Shell Chemical Company’s, and She
OPINION OF THE COURT REAVLEY, Circuit Judge. This Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for granting clearance to market certain types of pedicle screw fixation devices (referred to generally as bone screws) was dismissed by the District Court pursuant to the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 Appellants contend here that