⚖ 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 “Robert Sharp and Linda Mae Sharp”

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015-08-06 · Published · cited 4× · 796 F.3d 1038
W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), authorizes the removal to federal court of “mass actions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(ll)(A), (B). “Mass actions” are civil actions in which “monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common ques
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2019-02-05 · Published · cited 0×
02/05/2019 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 26, 2018 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BARBARA MAE POTTER Appeal from the Criminal Court for Washington County No. 39553A Jon Kerry Blackwood, Senior Judge ___________________________________
Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2016-02-26 · Published · cited 0× · 416 S.C. 455; 788 S.E.2d 212; 2016 S.C. LEXIS 25
ORDER The South Carolina Bar has furnished the attached list of lawyers (including those holding a limited certifícate to practice law) who have failed to pay their license fees for 2016. Pursuant to Rule 419(d)(1), SCACR, these lawyers are hereby suspended from the practice of law. They shall surrender their certifícate of admission to practice law to the Clerk of this Court by March 24, 2016. Any petition for rein
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · 2021-11-04 · Published · cited 0×
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · 2018-12-21 · Published · cited 1× · 566 S.W.3d 410
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr
District Court, N.D. Mississippi · 2003-01-30 · Published · cited 1× · 244 F. Supp. 2d 672; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7380; 2003 WL 344195
244 F.Supp.2d 672 (2003) William AGNEW, et al Plaintiffs v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL FINANCE GROUP, LLC Defendants No. 1:01-CV-206-M-D. United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division. January 30, 2003. *674 Brian Henry Neely, Brian H. Neely, Attorney, Tupelo, for William Agnew, Alice Anderson, Minnie Anderson, Daniel B
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2015-05-06 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 03-15-00085-CV 5176028 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1994-07-05 · Published · cited 517× · 639 So. 2d 216; 1994 WL 316840
639 So.2d 216 (1994) Rosa Mae AMBROSE, et al. v. NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT AMBULANCE SERVICE, et al. Nos. 93-C-3099, 93-C-3110 and 93-C-3112. Supreme Court of Louisiana. July 5, 1994. Rehearing Denied September 15, 1994. *217 Kathy Lee Torregano, City Atty., Philip C. Ciaccio, Jr., Earl G. Perry, Jr., for app
West Virginia Supreme Court · 1977-12-20 · Published · cited 34× · 240 S.E.2d 544; 161 W. Va. 230; 1977 W. Va. LEXIS 322
240 S.E.2d 544 (1977) Mae L. HAYNES v. The CITY OF NITRO, etc., Appellant, Penn Central Transportation Co., etc., et al., Appellees. No. 13624. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. December 20, 1977. Rehearing Denied February 6, 1978. *545 Betty L. Caplan, Charleston, for appellant. Kay, Casto &a;
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2014-04-11 · Published · cited 70× · 749 F.3d 879
FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 11, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court VICKIE SCHMIDT PARSON; PATRICIA SCALES;
Tillman v. Sessionspublic domain
District Court, District of Columbia · 2019-06-20 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) TAMEKA TILLMAN ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:17-cv-00475 (APM)
People v. Kopatzpublic domain
California Supreme Court · 2015-04-30 · Published · cited 71× · 61 Cal. 4th 62; 347 P.3d 952; 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797; 2015 Cal. LEXIS 2338
Opinion CHIN, J. A jury convicted defendant Kim Raymond Kopatz of the first degree murders of Mary Kopatz and Carley Kopatz. (Pen. Code, § 187.) 1 It found true the special circumstance allegations of murder for financial gain (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1)) and multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). After a
Supreme Court of Kansas · 1980-12-06 · Published · cited 4× · 620 P.2d 319; 228 Kan. 669; 1980 Kan. LEXIS 368
The opinion of the court was delivered by Herd, J.: This is an appeal by Doral Eugene Steckman from a decree of adoption granted in the Stafford District Court. Steckman, the natural father of Sammy and Millie Steckman, is contesting his children’s adoption by Glen Courtney, their stepfather, because he did not give his consent. Steckman and Mildred Rebecca Steckman, now Courtney, were div
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001-12-10 · Published · cited 51× · 559 S.E.2d 327; 348 S.C. 340; 2001 S.C. App. LEXIS 163
348 S.C. 340 (2001) 559 S.E.2d 327 Wannelle HEDGEPATH, Andrew Hedgepath, and Kristin Hedgepath, Appellants/Respondents, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a corporation, AT & T Nassau Metals Corporation, Respondents/Appellants, and Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation, and Southwire Company, Respondents. Karen Mack as Personal Representative of the Estate of Toby L. Sharpe, Sr., Appellant/Respondent,
District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1985-06-07 · Published · cited 1× · 108 F.R.D. 287; 2 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 939; 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19081
ORDER EDENFIELD, District Judge. Before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against defendant Amchem Products, Inc. (Amchem). I. Background This case, like the scores of other asbestos cases brought by plaintiff's counsel, began with a shotgun blast of allegations against some twenty-six defendants. Thereafter, the action fit into a litigation
State v. Youngpublic domain
Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1998-05-15 · Published · cited 6× · 712 So. 2d 273; 1998 WL 249057
712 So.2d 273 (1998) STATE of Louisiana v. Leroy Timothy YOUNG. No. 96 KW 2079. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. May 15, 1998. *274 Walter P. Reed, District Attorney, Covington, and Dorothy A. Pendergrast, Metairie, for State of Louisiana. James E. Boren and J. Rodney Baum, Baton Rouge, for Defendant-Appellee L
Illinois Supreme Court · 2011-09-22 · Published · cited 37× · 2011 IL 110096
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Supreme Court Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 2011 IL 110096 Caption in Supreme DORA MAE JABLONSKI et al., Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR Court: COMPANY et al. (Ford Motor Company, Appellant). Docket No. 110096 Filed September 22, 2011 Held The duty analysis in a negligent-product-design
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1990-10-17 · Published · cited 29× · 580 A.2d 1044; 321 Md. 3; 1990 Md. LEXIS 166
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 5 In this case of corporate fiduciary disloyalty we examine, against the background of an original record that fills a van, whether prejudice resulted from jury access to, and presumed consideration of, certain documents not in evidence. Petitioner, State of Maryland Deposit Insurance Fund Corporation (MD
Appellate Court of Illinois · 1991-08-16 · Published · cited 0× · 218 Ill. App. 3d 682; 578 N.E.2d 1020; 161 Ill. Dec. 374; 1991 Ill. App. LEXIS 1375
JUSTICE LaPORTA delivered the opinion of the court: Petitioner, the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, appeals from a decision and order of the Illinois State Labor Relations Board (Board) which held that certain clerical and administrative employees of the petitioner lacked confidential or supervisory status and, therefore, were not excluded from a