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 “Joseph S. Dailey”
Willmar Elec. Servs. Corp. v. Dailey (In re Dailey)public domain
Laurie Smith Camp, Chief United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on appeal of Willmar Electric Services Corp. (Willmar) from the judgment issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the *344District of Nebraska1 (the "Bankruptcy Court"), in favor of Appellee Joseph K. Dailey. BK ECF No. 96
United States v. Daileypublic domain
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jaron Quinn Dailey has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed an initial brief and a supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Dailey has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel
Dailey v. Lewpublic domain
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mitzi E. Dailey appeals the district court’s order granting Appellees’ motions to dismiss her civil claims against them, including her race and sex and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no revers
United States v. Warren Daileypublic domain
HAYNES, Circuit Judge: Defendant Warren Dailey challenges his conviction for five counts relating to a scheme under which he certified individuals for home health care in exchange for $400 a month. We AFFIRM. 1 I. This case arises out of allegations that Dr. Warren Dailey e
Siegmund v. Dailey Thomas Holding, LLCpublic domain
ORDER PER CURIAM: Bernard Allen Siegmund and Mary Margaret Siegmund appeal the judgment of the Buchanan County Circuit Court denying their claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement. In their first two points on appeal, they argue that the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. In their third point on appeal, they argue that the trial court
Dailey v. United Statespublic domain
611 A.2d 963 (1992) Joseph E. DAILEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 85-CF-793. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued October 2, 1991. Decided June 26, 1992. *964 Jo-Ann Wallace, Public Defender Service, with whom James Klein, Public Defender Service, was on the brief for appellant. J.
Dailey v. Secura Insurancepublic domain
164 Wis.2d 624 (1991) 476 N.W.2d 299 Dee W. DAILEY, Dawn A. Dailey, and Paul A. Dailey, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiffs, v. SECURA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent,[] WEA INSURANCE TRUST, Defendant-Appellant. Joseph R. JUDAE, and Wisconsin Physician Service Insurance Corp., Defendants No. 90-2077. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Attorney Grievance v. Daileypublic domain
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mitzi Elaine Dailey, AG No. 6, September Term, 2020. Opinion by Getty, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTION – DISBARMENT Respondent, Mitzi Elaine Dailey, violated several provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) and the Maryland Rules when she failed to maintain an attorney trust account, failed to act on her client’s case, failed to communicate with her client, abandoned representation of her client, misappropriate
DAILEY, PATRICK J., PEOPLE vpublic domain
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 979 KA 15-00601 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PATRICK J. DAILEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. NIAGARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
930 S.W.2d 242 (1996) HOUSTON MERCANTILE EXCHANGE CORPORATION; Gary Boyd; Steve Green; Joe Bond; P & T Petroleros; and Leonard Wood, Appellants, v. DAILEY PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Appellee. No. 14-94-00305-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). August 29, 1996. *243 Kurt Arbuckle, Clinard J. Hanby, Joseph A. Bond,
Lande v. Daileypublic domain
— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lehner, J.), entered November 19,1981, reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and defendant and counterclaim plaintiff-appellant Dailey’s motion to strike the case from the calendar and to compel further discovery granted, the same to be scheduled as hereinafter set forth, without costs. Plaintiff sublet his apartment in New York to defendant sublessee for a two-year term. He complains
Joseph v. Local UAW 1097 Unionpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER LARIMER, Chief Judge. Plaintiff, Carlton Joseph, appearing pro se, commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County. Defendants removed the action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.' § 1441, on the ground that this court has original jurisdiction over the action under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185,
Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.public domain
Opinion IRION, J. I INTRODUCTION William Dailey (Dailey), individually and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated individuals, sued Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears), alleging several causes of action arising from Dailey’s core contention that Sears violated California’s wage and hour laws, including those governing overtime pay and rest and meal breaks, w
Allstate Insurance v. Daileypublic domain
39 N.Y.2d 759 (1976) Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent, v. Frank Dailey, Respondent, and Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellant. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued March 23, 1976. Decided April 27, 1976. Richard Bakalor, Samuel F. Simone and Robert E. Quirk for appellant. Joseph Maria and Rocco Conte for
Miles v. Daileypublic domain
ORDER Ira L. Miles, a Tennessee prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). Seeking over three million d
Dailey v. First Peoples Bank of New Jerseypublic domain
76 B.R. 963 (1987) Thomas J. DAILEY and Ann Dailey, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST PEOPLES BANK OF NEW JERSEY, the Estate of Joseph Tuso, Deceased, Sheldon C. Schulman, and Chelsea Title & Guaranty Company, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendants. FIRST PEOPLES BANK OF NEW JERSEY, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Ronald L. GLICK, Trustee of the Estate of J. Martin Cook and Sue S. Cook, in Bankruptcy, and of the Estate of Peter Romeo,
People v. Daileypublic domain
15 Ill. App.3d 214 (1973) 304 N.E.2d 156 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARY LEE DAILEY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 11652. Illinois Appellate Court Fourth District. November 7, 1973. *215 John F. McNichols, Deputy Defender, of Springfield, (J. Daniel Stewart, Assistant Appellat
United States v. Daileypublic domain
PER CURIAM. Travis Chad Dailey appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion by the district court. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(l)(2000). This court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a *2
Reinaldo Reina Jr. v. William Joseph Klisivitchpublic domain
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2023-2550 Lower Tribunal No. 20-CA-004775 _____________________________ REINALDO REINA, JR., Appellant, v. WILLIAM JOSEPH KLIS
People v. Joseph Wayne Washingtonpublic domain
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.