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.
6 opinions for “Lance Robert Welker”
Hubbell Inc. v. Pass & Seymour, Inc.public domain
781 F.Supp.2d 67 (2011) HUBBELL INC., Plaintiff, v. PASS & SEYMOUR, INC., Defendant. Civil Case No. 3:08-cv-1656 (JCH). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. March 17, 2011. *69 Alfred N. Goodman, Christian C. Michel, Kevin M. Barner, Mark S. Bicks, Roylance, Abrams, Berdo, & Goodman, LLP, Washington, DC, Robert J
United States v. Millspublic domain
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Defendant Robert Baytops's motion to suppress all of the physical evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at 15269 Troester Street in Detroit, Michigan (Dkt. 589). The Government has filed a response in opposition to the motion (Dkt. 625).1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motion.
People v. Kazuo G.public domain
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 3 OPINION In this appeal we are asked to decide whether the juvenile court properly imposed a previously stayed commitment to a county institution. We find no error. FACTS Defendant, Kazuo G., a juvenile, was charged in an original petition filed in March 1991 with six o
Stong v. PennDotpublic domain
KIESER, J., Before the court is plaintiffs’ post-trial motions following a jury verdict in favor of defendants, which was returned on May 31, 2001. This court issued an order granting a new trial as to the liability of the defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, on October 5, 2001. This opinion is written in support of that order. This matter arises from a tragic acciden
United States v. Bowenpublic domain
ORDER AND REASONS KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Judge. Before the Court is the Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 963) originally urged by defendant Arthur Kaufman, and joined in by the other defendants in this matter who were tried and convicted in 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants” or “the defendants).1 The government opposes this motion. (Rec. Doc. 1007.) Th
Berkley v. United Statespublic domain
PROST, Circuit Judge. This is a military pay class action case brought on behalf of officers of the United States Air Force terminated pursuant to a 1993 Reduction in Force (“RIF”). The basis of their complaint is that the formal instructions governing selection for involuntary termination required different treatment of officers based on their race or gender, thereby violating the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amen