⚖ 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 “Jones v. TCM”

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2022-01-11 · Published · cited 4× · 270 A.3d 1; 2022 Pa. Super. 8
J-A20022-21 J-A20023-21 2022 PA Super 8 BRIAN W. JONES, ASSIGNEE OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WILSON C. FOX : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellant : : : v. : : : No. 269 WDA 2021 JANICE MCGREEVY,
Grazer v. Jonespublic domain
Utah Supreme Court · 2012-09-14 · Published · cited 14× · 289 P.3d 437; 2012 UT 58; 717 Utah Adv. Rep. 28; 2012 Utah LEXIS 122; 2012 WL 4040892
Justice LEE, opinion of the court: 1 1 In 2005, Allen Grazer obtained a judgment against Gordon Jones and Richard Bar*439ney for breach of contract. To satisfy the judgment, property held by Jones and Barney was sold at a sheriff's sale and purchased by Grazer's attorney on his client's behalf. Jones and Barney assigned their redemption interests to th
Oregon Tax Court · 2008-07-08 · Published · cited 0×
DECISION Plaintiffs appeal Defendant's assessments of state income tax for tax year 1995. This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the parties. Oral *Page 2 argument was held in the courtroom of the Oregon Tax Court, Salem, Oregon, on March 6, 2008. There is no material issue of fact. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plainti
District Court, D. Nevada · 2015-01-20 · Published · cited 0× · 98 F. Supp. 3d 1147; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7013; 2015 WL 247811
*1149ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. This case arises out of a residential mortgage foreclosure. Pending before the Court is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 14). For the reasons given herein, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Pla
McKinney v. Colvinpublic domain
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2013-09-20 · Published · cited 0× · 973 F. Supp. 2d 1011; 2013 WL 5298473; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134521
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THOMAS C. MUMMERT, III, United States Magistrate Judge. This 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) action for judicial review of the final decision of Carolyn W. Colvin, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner), denying the applications of Melvin McKinney (Plaintiff) for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 40
Cook v. Pueppkepublic domain
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2006-03-14 · Published · cited 1× · 421 F. Supp. 2d 1201; 2006 WL 680973
421 F.Supp.2d 1201 (2006) Anthony COOK, Plaintiff, v. Captain PUEPPKE, Donna Peters, and Deborah (Hardin) Vinson,[1] Defendants. No. 1:05CV0105 TCM. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division. March 14, 2006. *1202 Anthony Cook, Charleston, MO, pro se. Dustin J. Allison, Attorney General
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2012-02-13 · Published · cited 1× · 852 F. Supp. 2d 1119; 2012 WL 458791; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17431
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THOMAS C. MUMMERT, III, United States Magistrate Judge. This insurance dispute is before the Court1 on opposing motions for summary *1122judgment: one filed by plaintiff, Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”); one filed by the intervenor, Fidelity National Title, Inc. (“Fidelity”)
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2005-07-01 · Published · cited 3× · 374 F. Supp. 2d 787; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16582; 2005 WL 1551298
374 F.Supp.2d 787 (2005) Lynne REED, Plaintiff, v. ROLLA 31 PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. No. 4:03CV1690 TCM. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. July 1, 2005. *788 *789 *790 Carla G. Holste, Carson and Coil, Jeffers
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1997-07-22 · Published · cited 2× · 974 F. Supp. 1274; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12770; 1997 WL 523381
974 F.Supp. 1274 (1997) Terry D. BALLARD, Plaintiff, v. RIVER FLEETS, INC., Defendant. No. 1:95CV0102 TCM. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division. July 22, 1997. Martin L. Perron, Sandor Korein, Carr and Korein, St. Louis, MO, for Terry D. Ballard. Terry D. Ballard, Wickliffe, KY, pro se. John R. Halpern, Goldstein and Price
Viehweg v. Mellopublic domain
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1998-05-26 · Published · cited 8× · 5 F. Supp. 2d 752; 1998 WL 271590
5 F.Supp.2d 752 (1998) William H. VIEHWEG, Plaintiff, v. Susan H. MELLO, Defendant. No. 4:97CV00211 TCM. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. May 26, 1998. *753 *754 William H. Viehweg, pro se. Scott C. Harper, Brinker & Doyer, Clayton, MO, for Defendant.</
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020-01-14 · Published · cited 4× · 179 A.D.3d 474; 117 N.Y.S.3d 36; 2020 NY Slip Op 230
Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP (2020 NY Slip Op 00230) Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP 2020 NY Slip Op 00230 Decided on January 14, 2020 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reportin
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1997-04-01 · Published · cited 0× · 961 F. Supp. 1296; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10939; 1997 WL 192501
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MUMMERT, United States Magistrate Judge. This employment discrimination action is before the Court on the motion of defendant, Union Electric Company (“UE”), for summary judgment in the two count-complaint filed by Lafayane Manse (“Plaintiff’) alleging that UE discriminated against him because of his race, African-American, by not promoting him to a building service mech
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016-11-22 · Published · cited 6× · 2016 NY Slip Op 7852; 144 A.D.3d 557; 42 N.Y.S.3d 96
*558 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered May 7, 2015, which granted in part and denied in part the motion of plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants Gentry T. Beach (Gentry), Robert A. Vollero (Mr. Vollero), and counterclaim defendants Vollero Beach Capital Partners LLC, Vollero Beach Capital Fund, LP, Vollero Be
Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2021-12-29 · Published · cited 4× · 504 P.3d 1236; 316 Or. App. 610
610 Argued and submitted September 27; reversed and remanded as to plaintiffs’ negligence claim, otherwise affirmed December 29, 2021 John M. MARSHALL and Karen M. Marshall, individuals; Patsy L. Marshall, an individual; Patsy L. Marshall, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard L. Marshall, Deceased; and Marshall Associated, LLC, an Oregon li
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2022-06-13 · Published · cited 9× · 36 F.4th 686
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0123p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ GREG ADKISSON et al., │ Plaintiffs-Appell
State v. Blazinapublic domain
Washington Supreme Court · 2015-03-12 · Published · cited 0×
FILE-, 1~1 CLtoRKS OFFICE ', 8Uf'REM'; CG UR:r, STAll: Of WASI.tcm'lll DATE MAR 1 2 20 I ~ .J ' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 89028-5 Respondent, ) (consol. wiNo. 89109-5)
Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2016-03-14 · Published · cited 45× · 64 V.I. 400; 2016 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 7
OPINION OF THE COURT (March 14, 2016) HODGE, Chief Justice. Appellant Antilles School, Inc., appeals from a jury verdict in favor of the appellee, Jamie Lembach, as well as the Superior Court’s denial of its motion to set aside the verdict. For the reasons that follow, we affirm, albeit on different grounds than those articulated by the Superior Court. I. BACKG
State v. Blazinapublic domain
Washington Supreme Court · 2015-03-12 · Published · cited 0×
NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision) The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential pur
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2022-05-18 · Published · cited 6× · 35 F.4th 421
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0107p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ GREG ADKISSON et al., │ Plaintiffs-Appell
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2015-08-11 · Published · cited 0×
MEMORANDUM DECISION Aug 11 2015, 10:03 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Nicholas T. Otis Tula Kavadias Newby,