⚖ 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 “Marshall v. ACE Motor Acceptance Corporation”

Court of Appeals of Iowa · 2016-04-06 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14-2121 Filed April 6, 2016 PELLA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CHARLIE MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge. An employer challenges the commissioner’s causation finding and award of benefits, medical expen
Connecticut Appellate Court · 2020-10-06 · Published · cited 4× · 200 Conn. App. 688
*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr
District Court, E.D. Texas · 2017-08-16 · Published · cited 0× · 274 F. Supp. 3d 578
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Defendant Ace Hardware Corporation’s (“Ace Hardware”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Class Action Complaint (Dkt. No. 13) (“the Motion”). Having considered each Parties’ arguments and for the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED. I. Background On February 17, 2017, Pla
Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2015-07-15 · Published · cited 0× · 413 S.C. 33; 775 S.E.2d 54; 2015 S.C. LEXIS 250
Justice KITTREDGE. We certified the following question from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina: “Can a legal malpractice claim be assigned between adversaries in litigation in which the alleged legal malpractice arose?” In answering the question “no,” we adopt the majority rule and hold that such assignments are void as against public policy.
Oregon Supreme Court · 2021-03-25 · Published · cited 15× · 483 P.3d 1124; 367 Or. 711
711 Argued and submitted September 16, 2020; decision of Court of Appeals reversed, limited judgments of trial court affirmed in part and reversed in part, and case remanded to trial court for further proceedings March 25, 2021 ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE COMPANY and Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, Petitioners on Review, v. ACE PROPER
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2016-08-09 · Published · cited 0×
Reversed and Rendered in part; and Remanded; Opinion Filed August 9, 2016. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-01425-CV ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC., Appellant V. COURTNEY COX, Appellee On Appeal from t
Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2015-07-15 · Published · cited 1× · 775 S.E.2d 37; 413 S.C. 33
Justice KITTREDGE. **34We certified the following question from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina: "Can a legal malpractice claim be assigned between adversaries in litigation in which the alleged legal malpractice arose?" In answering the question "no," we adopt the majority rule and hold that such assignments
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · 2024-02-22 · Published · cited 0×
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00221-CV ___________________________ 2016 PARKVIEW CONDOMINIUMS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Appellant and Appellee V. LAWRENCE E. MARSHALL, Appellee and Appellant On Appeal from the 153
Marshall v. Potterpublic domain
District Court, District of Columbia · 2009-07-14 · Published · cited 24× · 634 F. Supp. 2d 66; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60120; 2009 WL 2023496
634 F.Supp.2d 66 (2009) Jasmine MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 08-1348 (ESH). United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 14, 2009. *68 Jasmine Marshall, Washington, DC, pro se. Michelle Lo, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washingto
Marshall v. Potterpublic domain
District Court, District of Columbia · 2009-07-14 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) JASMINE MARSHALL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1348 (ESH)
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2025-06-17 · Published · cited 2× · 141 F.4th 1164
USCA11 Case: 24-10259 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 06/17/2025 Page: 1 of 18 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10259 ____________________ J.F., a minor by and th
District Court, D. Maryland · 2008-11-21 · Published · cited 5× · 587 F. Supp. 2d 697; 2008 A.M.C. 2846; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97108
587 F.Supp.2d 697 (2008) ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. v. GRAND BANKS YACHTS, LTD. Civil No. CCB-07-3366. United States District Court, D. Maryland. November 21, 2008. *699 Stephen M. Calder, Charles W. McCammon, Palmer Biezup and Henderson LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Ace American Insurance Company. David W. Skeen, Meighan Gri
Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2012-09-07 · Published · cited 10× · 107 So. 3d 13; 2011 La.App. 4 Cir. 0990; 2012 La. App. LEXIS 1116; 2012 WL 3893070
TERRI F. LOVE, Judge. 11 This appeal arises from a trial on the merits for the four class representatives in a class action proceeding resulting from injuries caused from exposure to carbide lime dust. Following a two-week bench trial, the trial court allocated fault amongst the defendants pursuant to multiple theories of recovery and awarded damages to each class representative. The defendants and their insurers alleged that
District Court, D. Rhode Island · 2010-04-30 · Published · cited 3× · 710 F. Supp. 2d 197; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43246; 2010 WL 1753585
710 F.Supp.2d 197 (2010) ADP MARSHALL, INC., a Division of Fluor NE, Inc., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. NORESCO, LLC and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Third-Party Defendants. C.A. No. 07-129ML. United States District Court, D. Rhode
District Court, S.D. Florida · 2016-10-03 · Published · cited 1× · 214 F. Supp. 3d 1299; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137872; 2016 WL 6705331
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN FAVOR OF ARBITRATION KENNETH A. MARRA, United States District Judge THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant EFN West Palm Motor Sales, LLC’s (“EFN West Palm Motor Sales”) Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Proceedings and to Compel Arbitration (“Motion”) (DE 11). The Court has carefully considered the Motion (DE 11), Plaintiff respon
District Court, C.D. California · 2012-06-12 · Published · cited 21× · 284 F.R.D. 504; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91394; 2012 WL 2250040
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge. On December 10, 2010, plaintiffs David J. Keegan, Luis Garcia, Betty Kolstad, Carol Hinkle, Eric Ellis, Charles Wright, and Jonathan Zdeb filed this putative class action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc., alleging claims under the Califor
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016-11-22 · Published · cited 66× · 151 A.3d 1032; 637 Pa. 625; 2016 Pa. LEXIS 2638
OPINION JUSTICE DONOHUE We address again the proper application of the “frequency, regularity, and proximity” criteria in asbestos product liability litigation, seeking to provide further illumination on the principles set forth in our decisions in this area, Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Co., 596 Pa. 274, 943 A.2d 216 (2007), and Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 615 Pa. 504, 44 A.3d 27 (2012). For the reasons that foll
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · 2008-08-21 · Published · cited 0×
Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part and Opinion filed August 21, 2008 Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part and Opinion filed August 21, 2008. In The
Superior Court of Delaware · 2019-09-11 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N19C-04-089 EMD CCLD ) AXIALL CORPORT
Superior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2023-12-04 · Published · cited 0× · 2023 VI Super 75P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ERBEY HOLDING CORPORATION; JOHN R. CASE NO. SX-2018-CV-00146 ERBEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER JUPITER CAPITAL INC.; SALT Complex Litigation Division POND HOLDINGS, LLC; MUNUS, L.P.; CARISMA TRUST, BY ITS TRUSTEE VENIA, LLC; TRIBUE Action for Damages LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND ALTISOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,