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 “Richard W Parks”
Parks v. Banner Pharmacapspublic domain
*********** The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award, based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Holmes and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence; receive further evidence; rehear the parties or their representatives; or amend the Opinion and Award. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of
Parks v. United Statespublic domain
687 F.Supp.2d 564 (2010) Carlos Andreas PARKS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. Nos. 5:05CV267-1-V, 5:99CR11-14-V. United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division. January 13, 2010. *565 Arnold R. Henderson, Arnold Henderson & Associates, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner. Amy E.
National Parks Conservation Association v. Salazarpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD W. ROBERTS, Chief Judge. The National Parks Conservation Association and nine other organizations 2 brought this suit against the Secretary of the Interior and the Northeast Regional Director of the U.S. National Park Service (“NPS”) challenging NPS’ decis
Parks v. Government of the District of Columbiapublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD W. ROBERTS, United States District Judge. The plaintiffs, parents of seven students who prevailed in separate administrative proceedings brought under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act (collectively, “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400
Parks v. Government of the District of Columbiapublic domain
MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge. Plaintiffs, the parents of seven students who allegedly prevailed in seven separate administrative proceedings brought under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities in Education and Improvement Act (collectively “IDEA”), codified at 20 U.S.C. § 14
Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Chi. Park Dist.public domain
John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge *667This dispute arises out of the City of Chicago (City) and the Chicago Park District's (Park District) efforts to bring the Obama Presidential Center (OPC) to the City's South Side. Plaintiffs sue to prevent construction of the OPC on a specific site within Jackson Park. [91] ¶ 1. Following this Court's ruling on Defen
Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Chi. Park Dist.public domain
John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge This order does not address the true facts of this case. Nor does it decide the legal merits of Plaintiffs' key claims. Instead, as with many rulings on motions to dismiss, this order merely clears away portions of the case that do not belong. As explained below, this Court grants in part, and denies in part, Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [48].
Anthony Parks v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgagepublic domain
CORRECTED OPINION PER CURIAM. Anthony Parks appeals a circuit court order that found that he remained in contempt of an earlier contempt order and sentenced him to thirty days in jail with an opportunity to purge only after he completed that sentence. The sentence was to be served consecutively to another sentence Parks- was serving in Miami-Dade County. We
GILBERTSON, Chief Justice [¶1.] Troy, Valley, and Butler Townships’ respective boards of supervisors vacated portions of several section-line highways in Day County. South Dakota’s Department of Game, Fish, and Parks appealed these administrative actions to the circuit court, asserting the highways provided access to bodies of water held in trust by the State for the public. The
Parks v. Ricepublic domain
{¶ 1} This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court, the parties' briefs, their supplemental authority, and their oral arguments before this court. Plaintiffs-appellants, Glennda and Richard Parks, appeal from the decisions of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Premium Marcor Group, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, Petro Stopping Centers, L.P., and Employers of Waus
Friends of the Parks v. Chicago Park Districtpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN W. DARRAH, United States District Court Judge Plaintiffs brought this action, seeking to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with *1062the construction of a museum on land that is adjacent to Lake Michigan. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, which was denied in part and granted in part on March 1
Parks v. Commonwealthpublic domain
WINTERSHEIMER, Justice. This appeal is from a judgment based on a conditional guilty plea which convicted Parks of murder, first-degree robbery and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. He was sentenced to a total of twenty years in prison. The sole question presented is whether the trial judge properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment following the failure of the Commonwealth to brin
Parks v. City of Columbuspublic domain
KEITH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff appeals the district court’s denial of declaratory and injunctive relief in this case involving an alleged infringement upon Plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech rights. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE the district court’s decision and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I.
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Recreation Departmentpublic domain
190 P.3d 487 (2008) 221 Or. App. 484 Bradley COLEMAN and Bonnie Coleman, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OREGON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, by and through STATE of Oregon, and John Does 1-3, Defendants-Respondents. 05CV0272, A131472. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted August 22, 2007. Decided August 6, 2008
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Parks v. Cooperpublic domain
2004 SD 27 ORDEAN PARKS, AUSTIN SCHILEY, PATRICIA SCHILEY, RAYMOND L. PARKS, IRL WILLIAM SCHILEY, HARLO HOUSE, INC. (whose principal owner is HAROLD WIDVEY), CHARLES SAYLOR, THE ESTATE OF CONSTANCE SAYLOR, LORRAINE STAMPS, REUBEN PARKS, AND VERNON L. PARKS TRUST, REUBEN PARKS, ORION PARKS, OTTO DEUSCHLE, VERNON L. PARKS TRUST, ORVILLE CHRISTOPHERSON, JOE MATTHEWS, MICHAEL MATTHEWS, ROBERT DALE, GREG PESALL, RANDY KNUTSON, MIKE DALE, JEROME DALE, MIKE EGE
Parks v. Portnoff Law Associatespublic domain
243 F.Supp.2d 244 (2003) Kevin PARKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PORTNOFF LAW ASSOCIATES, Defendant. Civil Action No. 02-48. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. January 22, 2003. *247 Richard N. Lipow, Malvern, PA, for plaintiffs. William F. McDevitt, James W. Christie, Christie, Pabarue, Mortensen & Young, Ph
385 F.3d 694 Douglas R. PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Richard H. FINAN; Ronald T. Keller; Kenneth L. Morckel; Lee A. Darden, Defendants-Appellants. No. 03-3848. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: March 16, 2004. Decided and Filed: September 29, 2004. Appeal from the United
Lambright v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Departmentpublic domain
157 S.W.3d 499 (2005) Edward LAMBRIGHT, Richard Moore, Eric Kimball, Terry Ricks, and Calhoun County Shrimpers, Appellants, v. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT and Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, Appellees. No. 03-03-00748-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. January 27, 2005. *502 James B. Blackburn Jr., Blackburn &
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Dearingpublic domain
150 S.W.3d 452 (2004) TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, Appellant, v. Milburn DEARING; Kenneth Head; and Mike Warren, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellees. No. 03-03-00131-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. January 8, 2004. Rehearing Overruled February 5, 2004. *454 Ric