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.
16 opinions for “Gentes v. Osten”
Commonwealth v. Greenleepublic domain
OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: *1040 Appellant, Jason Greenlee, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions for possession of a controlled substance and persons not to possess a firearm.
United States v. Carterpublic domain
This opinion is subject to revision before publication UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES _______________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Gerald R. CARTER Jr., Private First Class United States Army, Appellant No. 19-0382 Crim. App. No. 20160770 Argued February 11
Courtney Webster v. CDI Indiana, LLCpublic domain
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18-3080 COURTNEY WEBSTER and BRIAN WEBSTER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CDI INDIANA, LLC, d/b/a CDI, d/b/a CDI INDIANAPOLIS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United Sta
State v. Rossiterpublic domain
44 Argued and submitted March 16, 2017, affirmed October 16, 2019 STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WENONA ROSSITER, Defendant-Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 13CR06277; A158920 453 P3d 562 A jury found defendan
Doe v. Madisonpublic domain
December 7, 2021 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT JOHN DOE v. TOWN OF MADISON (SC 20508) JOHN DOE v. TOWN OF MADISON ET AL.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxtonpublic domain
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxtonpublic domain
PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 606 U. S. Part 2 Pages 461–521 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 27, 2025 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
Trump v. Slaughterpublic domain
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit
State v. Holmespublic domain
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EVAN JARON HOLMES (SC 20048) Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js. Syllabus Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crimes of felony murder, home invasion, conspiracy to commit home invasion and criminal possession of a fire- arm, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court had improperly overruled his objectio
Cooperativa De Seguros Múltiples De Puerto Rico Y Otro v. Estado Libre Asociado De Puerto Rico Y Otrospublic domain
EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO Cooperativa de Seguros Múltiples de Puerto Rico y Pentagon Federal Credit Union 2026 TSPR 36 Recurridos 218 DPR ___ v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico y otros Peticionarios Número del Caso: CC-2025-0230 Fecha: 9 de abril de 2026 Tribunal de Apelaciones:Panel XI Oficina del Procurador General:
Castro Torres v. Negrón Sotopublic domain
Opinión disidente emitida por la Juez Asociada Señora Na-veira de Rodón. El recurso de epígrafe plantea el delicado asunto del reconocimiento de un menor por un tercero cuando a dicho menor le cobija la presunción de paternidad por estar su madre casada al momento del nacimiento. Disentimos de la opinión mayoritaria por entender que el Sr. José Antonio Negrón Soto no podía reconocer al menor, ya que éste le-galmente e
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Projectpublic domain
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit
Ramírez de Ferrer v. Mari Bráspublic domain
Opinión disidente emitida por el Juez Asociado Señor Co-rrada del Río. Que consideramos factores determinantes en nuestra vida la ciudadanía de los Estados Unidos de América y la aspiración a continuamente enriquecer nuestro acervo democrático en el disfrute individual y colectivo de sus derechos y prerrogativas; la lealtad a los postulados de la Constitución Federal', la convi-vencia e
ARGUELLESpublic domain
Interim Decision #3399 In re Eloy ARGUELLES-Campos, Respondent File A73 000 231 - San Diego Decided June 7, 1999 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Effective April 1, 1997, an alien may apply for voluntary depart
Miranda v. Editorial El Imparcial, Inc.public domain
El Juez Asociado Señor Santana Becerra emitió la opinión del Tribunal. Se trata de una acción de cobro de dinero y daños por incumplimiento de contrato. La Editorial El Imparcial, Inc., obtuvo los servicios profesionales del periodista Don Luis Antonio Miranda por contrato fechado 26 de julio de 1967, suscrito en representación de la Editorial El Imparcial por Don Antonio Ayuso Valdivieso como Presidente y Dire
Permissibility of the Administration and Use of the Federal Payroll Allocation System by Executive Branch Employees for Contributions to Political Action Committees Federal employees who would offer the use of, or administer, the federal salary-allocation system for allotments to political action committees, would not, without more, violate 18 U.S.C. §§602 and 607, or the civil provisions o f the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993. The Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 wo