⚖ 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 “Sandra Gayle Clark”

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014-05-16 · Published · cited 2× · 565 F. App'x 4
JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This case was considered on the record from the district court and on the briefs of the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. CIR. R. 34(j). The court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C.Cir. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGE
Gayle King v. Statepublic domain
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · 2005-08-18 · Published · cited 0×
Idaho Supreme Court · 2012-05-30 · Published · cited 0× · 153 Idaho 50; 278 P.3d 920; 2012 WL 1943328; 2012 Ida. LEXIS 130
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 38827 FRANK RONALD MAREK and GAYLE A. ) MAREK, husband and wife, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) Lewiston, May 2012 Term v. ) ) 2012 Opinion No. 81 EARL A. LAWRENCE and SANDRA L. ) LAWRENCE,
District Court, S.D. Florida · 2016-09-23 · Published · cited 6× · 208 F. Supp. 3d 1268; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130500; 2016 WL 5338077
ORDER DARRIN P. GAYLES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Laboss Transportation Services, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 87]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, Defendant’s Response [ECF No. 93], the record, and the applicable law. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is granted. This Motion follows the Court’s Order denyi
District Court, S.D. Florida · 2016-05-26 · Published · cited 1× · 188 F. Supp. 3d 1320; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69207; 2016 WL 3017213
ORDER DARRIN P. GAYLES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 24]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the parties’ written submissions, the record, and the applicable law and has heard argument from the parties. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied.
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · 2012-08-30 · Published · cited 5× · 398 S.W.3d 315; 179 Oil & Gas Rep. 143; 2012 WL 3757386; 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7396
OPINION Opinion by Justice PERKES. This is an oil and gas case. 1 Appellants, David Ohrt, Sandra Hester and Judy Si-nast (collectively “appellants” or “Ohrts”), the lessors of an oil and gas lease, brought suit against appellees, Union Gas Corporation (the lessee) (“Union Ga
Andrade v. Kuolulupublic domain
Hawaii Supreme Court · 2024-10-24 · Published · cited 0×
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 24-OCT-2024 07:56 AM Dkt. 48 ODAC SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
Andrade v. Kuolulupublic domain
Hawaii Supreme Court · 2024-09-26 · Published · cited 0×
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 26-SEP-2024 02:30 PM Dkt. 32 ODAC SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
Cross v. Robertspublic domain
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018-06-20 · Published · cited 0× · 2018 NY Slip Op 4530
Cross v Roberts (2018 NY Slip Op 04530) Cross v Roberts 2018 NY Slip Op 04530 Decided on June 20, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 4
Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984-11-13 · Published · cited 10× · 357 N.W.2d 407; 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3779
357 N.W.2d 407 (1984) In the Matter of ESTATE OF Jessie Pearl OLSEN, a.k.a. Jessie P. Olsen, Sandra Olsen Clark, et al., Objectors. No. CO-84-556. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. November 13, 1984. *409 Thomas Bennett Wilson, III, Gayle Gaumer, Edina, for appellants. Eric J. Magnuson, Mary W. Mason, Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arund
Hackford v. Snowpublic domain
Utah Supreme Court · 1982-11-23 · Published · cited 8× · 657 P.2d 1271; 1982 Utah LEXIS 1109
657 P.2d 1271 (1982) Clifton J. HACKFORD, Sharon Hackford, Randolph G. Hackford, and Sandra H. Asay, Plaintiffs and Appellants and Cross-Respondents, v. Albert Leo SNOW and Corwin Barton SNOW, Defendants and Respondents and Cross-Appellants. Albert Leo SNOW, Plaintiff and Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. Randolph G. HACKFORD aka Randolph George Hackford, Clifton J. Hackford and Sharon Hackford, husband and wife; Clifton K. Hackford
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2022-04-21 · Published · cited 0× · 2022 Ark. 94
Cite as 2022 Ark. 94 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS IN RE SUSPENSION OF Opinion Delivered April 21, 2022 ATTORNEYS WHO FAILED TO PAY 2022 ANNUAL ATTORNEY-LICENSE FEE PERCURIAM The final deadline for attorneys to pay the 2022 annual attorney-license fee was April 15, 2022. As required by Rule VII(C)(9) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, attached
Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2020-06-03 · Published · cited 0×
PERRINE CHAUMONT * NO. 2020-CA-0017 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT
District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1999-05-21 · Published · cited 0× · 118 F. Supp. 2d 1214; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22269; 1999 WL 33217063
*1215 MEMORANDUM OPINION ACKER, District Judge. Presently before the court is City of Birmingham’s (“City’s”) Motion Under Rule 59(e) to Alter or Amend Judgment and Under Rule 60(b)(l)(6) for Relief From Judgment, filed April 30, 1999 (the “Rule 59/60 motion”). In its said motion, City contends that this court’s opinion and order of Apr
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004-12-17 · Published · cited 0× · 349 F. Supp. 2d 175; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28041
349 F.Supp.2d 175 (2004) In re MARITIMES & NORTHEAST PIPELINE, L.L.C. CONDEMNATION ACTIONS 97.25 ACRES OF LAND, More or Less in Boxford, Massachusetts, Owned by Jack R. Pearl; 24.7 ACRES OF LAND, More or Less in Boxford, Massachusetts, Owned by John P. & Dorothy E. McCormack 39.52 ACRES OF LAND, More or Less in Methuen, Massachusetts, Leasehold Interest of Timothy & Carmela Benoit 4.4 ACRES OF LAND, More or Less in Peabody, Ma
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004-11-18 · Published · cited 6× · 861 A.2d 610; 2004 D.C. App. LEXIS 617; 2004 WL 2609797
861 A.2d 610 (2004) Jermaine L. GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 99-CF-1484. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued October 5, 2004. Decided November 18, 2004. *611 Winsome G. Gayle, Public Defender Service, with whom James Klein, Sandra K. Levick and Tracey D. Weaver, Public Defender Se
District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1999-04-22 · Published · cited 3× · 118 F. Supp. 2d 1200; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22273; 1999 WL 33217062
118 F.Supp.2d 1200 (1999) Valinda F. OLADEINDE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, et al., Defendants. No. CV-91-AR-0196-S. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division. April 22, 1999. *1201 William M. Dawson, Jr., Dawson & Gear, Birmingham, AL, Gayle H. Gear, Birmingham, AL, for Valinda F. Oladeinde
Ohio Supreme Court · 2018-01-24 · Published · cited 0× · 89 N.E.3d 622; 2018 Ohio 248; 151 Ohio St. 3d 1488
This list is being published pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 1(15). The following persons have applied to take the February 2017 Ohio Bar Examination. Allen Taylor Gene Vance Lima Ashland Sarah Kathleen Lewis Austinburg Belmont Carson Lee Schambach St. Clairsville Butler Eric ScottBeutel Liberty Township Marc Edward Bras
Tennessee Supreme Court · 2008-06-24 · Published · cited 18× · 259 S.W.3d 656; 2008 Tenn. LEXIS 418; 2008 WL 2502113
259 S.W.3d 656 (2008) Lacay CREW v. FIRST SOURCE FURNITURE GROUP d/b/a Anderson Hickey Company. No. W2006-00713-SC-WCM-WC. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Jackson. April 1, 2008 Session. June 24, 2008. *659 S. Newton Anderson and Gayle B. Lakey, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, First Source Furniture Group d
Nevada Supreme Court · 2002-04-11 · Published · cited 0× · 118 Nev. 233; 43 P.3d 998; 118 Nev. Adv. Rep. 26; 2002 Nev. LEXIS 36
*238OPINION By the Court, Agosti, J.: In this case we are asked to determine the constitutionality of NRS 122.025, which permits a minor under the age of sixteen to marry with the consent of one parent and the district court’s authorization. Under that statute, the district court permitted petitioner’s fifteen-year-old daughter to m