⚖ 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 “Hill v. U.S. Bank, National Association”

California Court of Appeal · 2014-11-26 · Published · cited 12× · 231 Cal. App. 4th 1315; 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 714; 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1087
Opinion COLLINS, J. Plaintiff Bunker Hill Park Limited (Bunker Hill) filed a petition to compel arbitration with its tenant, defendant U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), to resolve the parties’ disagreement over whether subleases automatically terminate if the underlying lease between Bunker Hill and U.S. Bank terminates. The trial court denied the
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2013-05-03 · Published · cited 17× · 48 Kan. App. 2d 892; 305 P.3d 1
McAnany, J.: This is an action to foreclose on the mortgage of a home. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The mortgagors Steven McConnell and his wife, Janet *894McConnell, appeal. The McConnells raise a number of issues regarding the propriety of U.S. Bank’s foreclosure action and of the district court’s entry of summary judgme
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2012-12-10 · Published · cited 1× · 912 F. Supp. 2d 478; 2012 WL 6115016; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174178
OPINION AND ORDER LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 44). The Motion for Summary Judgment has been fully briefed.1 The Court also must address Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate’s Order Regarding Discovery (Docket # 45), which also has been fully bri
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2024-12-18 · Published · cited 0× · 155 Haw. 225; 560 P.3d 480
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 18-DEC-2024 08:08 AM Dkt. 44 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2025-09-19 · Published · cited 0×
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 19-SEP-2025 07:56 AM Dkt. 98 SO
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2025-06-27 · Published · cited 0×
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 27-JUN-2025 08:20 AM Dkt. 64 SO NO. CAA
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010-09-03 · Published · cited 2× · 43 So. 3d 851; 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12917; 2010 WL 3446871
ORFINGER, J. U.S. Bank appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to cancel and reschedule a foreclosure sale, objection to the sale, and motion to vacate the foreclosure sale and return funds to the third-party purchasers. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Although the procedural history of this seemingly uncomplicated mortgage foreclosure proceeding is unnecessarily complex, suffice it to sa
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009-09-08 · Published · cited 0× · 17 So. 3d 862; 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13494
PER CURIAM. U.S. Bank seeks to appeal three post-judgment orders entered in this foreclosure matter. Because it appears that the trial court has not rendered proper final orders, we sua sponte conclude the appeal is premature and remand the matter to the trial court for rendition of final orders pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(l). Following the entry of a foreclosure judgmen
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2023-09-12 · Published · cited 0× · 2023 OK 86
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC. v. HILL2023 OK 86Case Number: 118680Decided: 09/12/2023THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2023 OK 86, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2023-09-12 · Published · cited 0× · 2023 OK 86
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC. v. HILL2023 OK 86Case Number: 118680Decided: 09/12/2023THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2023 OK 86, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2023-09-12 · Published · cited 0× · 2023 OK 86
OSCN Found Document:U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC. v. HILL Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case Print Only
New York Supreme Court · 2009-02-06 · Published · cited 0× · 23 Misc. 3d 735
OPINION OF THE COURT William J. Giacomo, J. Based on the following the motion is denied. Factual and Procedural Background Movants Joseph Tomlinson and Michael Gemei (hereinafter the movants) were the successful bidders on the premises known as 52 Regents Road, Warwick, New York, bidding $410,000 at a *736for
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2009-08-31 · Published · cited 0× · 385 S.C. 364; 684 S.E.2d 199; 2009 S.C. App. LEXIS 466
PIEPER, J. U.S. Bank Trust National Association (Bank) appeals the decision of the master-in-equity denying Bank’s request for foreclosure. Bank further appeals the order restructuring the loan given to Delores and Clifford E. Bell (the Bells). We reverse and remand. FACTS In 2001, Bank commenced a foreclosure action against the Bells’ property, resulting in a judgment of foreclosure dated
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2018-07-27 · Published · cited 0× · 255 So. 3d 283
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2025-01-23 · Published · cited 0×
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, as successor to U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee, for Conseco Finance Home Equity Loan Trust 2001-C, Respondent, v. Frances L. Mack n/k/a Frances L. Mack-Marion, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2022-001147 Appeal From Orangeburg County James B. Jackson, Jr., Master-in-Equity Opinion No. 28255 Heard May 22, 2024 – Filed Jan
Superior Court of Delaware · 2023-01-24 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PVP ASTON, LLC, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. N22C-03-103 AML CCLD U.S. BANK NATIONAL ) ASSOCIATION, et al. ) ) D
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit · 2020-01-10 · Published · cited 0×
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _______________________________ BAP NOS. NH 18-056, NH 18-063 _______________________________ Bankruptcy Case No. 18-10552-BAH _______________________________ DARLENE MARIE VERTULLO, a/k/a Darlene M. Marie Un
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004-04-16 · Published · cited 6× · 365 F.3d 1284; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7393; 2004 WL 817394
HILL, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a district court order denying the bondholder plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action and dismissing their complaint without prejudice on the grounds that they, as trust beneficiaries, lack standing to bring suit against the three trust fiduciary defendants, or, in the alternative, that as to one trust fiduciary defendant, their c
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2015-09-24 · Published · cited 0× · 539 B.R. 96
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Stephani W. Humrickhouse, United States Bankruptcy Judge The matter before the court is the motion for partial summary judgment, filed by U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”), and CWCapital Asset Management, LLC (“CWCapital”) (collectively, the “defendants”), as to Count Five of Burcam Capital II, LLC’s (the “plaintiff’) First Amended
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2018-10-05 · Published · cited 1× · 590 B.R. 663
Robert N. Opel, II, Chief Bankruptcy Judge (BI) Chapter 13 Debtor filed a three-count adversary Complaint claiming a creditor, creditor's servicing agent, and creditor's counsel violated the automatic stay, Debtor's confirmed Chapter 13 Plan, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In separate motions, all of the Defendants moved to dismiss the adversary Complaint. For the reasons stated below, the US Bank and SN Servicing Def