⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

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 “Hall v. Flagship Credit Acceptance, LLC”

District Court, S.D. New York · 2017-09-25 · Published · cited 25× · 277 F. Supp. 3d 521
OPINION & ORDER SIDNEY H. STEIN, U.S. District Judge. Table of Contents I. Background... 537 A. Summary of CHF LIBOR... 537 B. Relationship between CHF LIBOR and Swiss Franc Derivatives.. .537 C. The Parties and the Types of Swiss Franc Deriv
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · 2023-12-14 · Published · cited 0×
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-22-00322-CV __________________ USA TODAY A/K/A GANNETT CO., INC., GANNETT PUBLISHING SERVICES, LLC, AND GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK, LLC, Appellants V.
District Court, S.D. New York · 2016-07-08 · Published · cited 55× · 194 F. Supp. 3d 263; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89160; 2016 WL 3773394
OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge This lawsuit by a computer software company seeks redress for critical statements about it and its flagship product that were posted on a computer support website. Plaintiff Enigma Software Group USA, LLC (“ESG”) develops and markets computer security products, including Spy-Hunter, its leading anti-malware program. Defendant Bleeping Computer LLC (“B
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 2011-07-26 · Published · cited 1× · 454 B.R. 495; 2011 WL 3207119
454 B.R. 495 (2011) In re HEATHERWOOD HOLDINGS, LLC., Debtor. Heatherwood Holdings, LLC., Plaintiff, v. First Commercial Bank, Jonathan L. Kimerling, HGC, Inc., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 09-00076-TOM11. Adversary No. 09-00017-TOM. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division. July 26, 2011. *500 Charles De
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2021-03-18 · Published · cited 0×
Dissenting Opinion Filed March 18, 2021 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00291-CV HEADINGTON ROYALTY, INC. AND HEADINGTON ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC, Appellants V. FINLEY RESOURCES, INC., FINLEY PRODUCTION CO. L.P. AND PETRO CANYON ENERGY, LLC, A
District Court, D. Connecticut · 2013-03-14 · Published · cited 0× · 960 F. Supp. 2d 373; 2013 WL 1092905; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35919
RULING RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 130) AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. No. 133). JANET C. HALL, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Charles Gibson, Jr. (“Gibson”) brings this suit for breach of contract, civil fraud, and unjust enrichment against defendants Geza Scap (“Scap”) and JGS
District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2008-02-27 · Published · cited 25× · 249 F.R.D. 230; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18941; 2008 WL 553243
ORDER RICHARD L. VOORHEES, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following Motions and Memoranda: (1) Defendant Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.’s (“Gulf Stream”) Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or in the Alternative, Motion to Change Venue, and Memorandum in Support, filed September 20, 2006 [Doc. ## 2,3]; (2) Defendant Sagon RV Supercenter, LLC’s (“Sagon”) Motion to Dismiss for Lac
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · 2015-12-02 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 04-15-00525-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 12/2/2015 4:11:00 PM
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2011-11-14 · Published · cited 60× · 825 F. Supp. 2d 664; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131325; 2011 WL 5520721
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge. This is an action alleging copyright infringement as well as breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, and unfair and deceptive trade practices under North Carolina law. Several motions are before the court. Five Defendants— R.T.G. Furniture Corp., Rooms to Go Tennessee Corp., Rooms to Go Louisiana Corp., Rooms to G
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2004-11-04 · Published · cited 46× · 316 B.R. 451; 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 1702; 43 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 253; 2004 WL 2480185
316 B.R. 451 (2004) In re GLOBAL SERVICE GROUP LLC, Debtor. David R. Kittay, Chapter 7 Trustee of Global Service Group LLC, Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Bank of New York, et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 01-15666(SMB). Adversary No. 04-2775. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. November 4, 2004. *453 Geron & Associa
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · 2015-06-12 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 01-15-00390-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/12/2015 9:25:40 PM
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2015-04-10 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 06-14-00040-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2012-05-18 · Published · cited 0×
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-10-00690-CV Harbor Ventures, Inc., Rand Forest d/b/a Shoreline Development, and LTYH, LLC, Appellants
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2012-05-18 · Published · cited 0×
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-10-00690-CV Harbor Ventures, Inc., Rand Forest d/b/a Shoreline Development, and LTYH, LLC, Appellants v. Tim Dalton, Sandra McKenney, and Susan Brown, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-05-002738, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGST
District Court, N.D. Florida · 2014-11-20 · Published · cited 2× · 60 F. Supp. 3d 1252; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163334; 2014 WL 6601150
ORDER RICHARD SMOAK, District Judge. Before me are Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 15), Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 28), Defendant Ally Financial, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 19), and Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition Defendant Ally Financial, In
Nebraska Supreme Court · 2023-07-14 · Published · cited 9× · 992 N.W.2d 736; 314 Neb. 698
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 07/14/2023 08:06 AM CDT - 698 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports BRUCE LAVALLEUR, P.C. V. GUARANTEE GROUP Cite as 314 Neb. 698 Bruce Lavalleur, P.C., a Nebraska profe
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025-04-18 · Published · cited 9× · 134 F.4th 821
Case: 24-30386 Document: 75-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED April 18, 2025 No. 24-30386
Zazzali v. Ellisonpublic domain
District Court, D. Idaho · 2013-09-24 · Published · cited 5× · 973 F. Supp. 2d 1187; 2013 WL 5352696; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139578
*1193ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION EDWARD J. LODGE, District Judge. On May 9, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams issued a Report and Recommendation in this matter, Dkt. 31. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days in which to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff filed
Grgurev v. Liculpublic domain
District Court, S.D. New York · 2017-01-26 · Published · cited 28× · 229 F. Supp. 3d 267; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11090; 2017 WL 377937
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs Omer and Ferdo Grgurev and Defendants Milan Licul and Branko Tur-cinovic are experienced restaurateurs who have owned and operated restaurants together for many years. Unfortunately, the relationship between them has now gone to pot, devolving into this acrid stew which, after long simmering, has now come to a boil. The
District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2014-03-25 · Published · cited 4× · 8 F. Supp. 3d 720; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39620; 2014 WL 1233465
MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES C. CACHERIS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants Calhoun County Bank, Inc. (“Calhoun County Bank”) and James L. Bennett’s (“Bennett”; together “Defendants”) Joint Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”). [Dkt. 7.] For the following reasons the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. I. Background This case a