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 “Sipple v. Meyer”
Sipple v. City of Haywardpublic domain
Opinion BOREN, P. J. For a number of years, individuals throughout California were improperly charged taxes for Internet access by their Internet service provider, New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (New Cingular), prompting various customers to file putative class action lawsuits. The lawsuits eventually settled, with New Cingular agreeing to seek refunds of the ta
Meyer v. Board of Regentspublic domain
Irwin, Judge. Appellant, Dan Meyer, filed an action in the district court for Lancaster County pursuant to Nebraska public meeting law, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 84-1408 through 84-1414 (Reissue 1987 & Supp. 1989), challenging the right of appellee, the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (Board), to undertake a closed-session discussion at a July 31,1989, emergency meeting called for the purpose of “evaluat[ing] and c
Sipple v. Foundation for National Progresspublic domain
Opinion NOTT, J. Appellant Donald Sipple appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court dismissed his complaint in favor of respondents Foundation for National Progress, doing business as “Mother Jones,” and Richard Blow (hereinafter sometimes referred to individually, or collectively as respondents). In this appeal we determine whether an article published by Mother Jones was privileged under Civil Code
Meyer v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF U. OF NEB.public domain
510 N.W.2d 450 (1993) Dan MEYER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, Appellee. No. A-91-942. Court of Appeals of Nebraska. June 22, 1993. *452 Stanford L. Sipple, of DeCamp Legal Services, P.C., Lincoln, for appellant. Fredric H. Kauffman and Terry R. Wittler, of Cline, Williams, Wright, Johnson &
Economy Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Meyerpublic domain
427 N.W.2d 742 (1988) ECONOMY FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Respondent, v. Richard Joseph MEYER, et al., Appellants. No. C2-88-549. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. August 23, 1988. Kay Nord Hunt, Ted E. Sullivan, Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent. Michael Dady, Charles R. Weaver, Jr., Lindquist & Vennum, Minneapol
Loop v. Muellerpublic domain
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 11/02/2021 08:08 AM CDT - 300 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 30 Nebraska Appellate Reports LOOP v. MUELLER Cite as 30 Neb. App. 300 Margo Loop, as Guardian and Conservator of
State v. Fusbypublic domain
195 N.W.2d 495 (1972) 188 Neb. 139 STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Rex L. FUSBY, Appellant. No. 38199. Supreme Court of Nebraska. March 10, 1972. *496 Mark M. Sipple, Columbus, for appellant. Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Gerald S. Vitamvas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee. Heard
Ascente Business Consulting v. DR myCommercepublic domain
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2474 ___________________________ Ascente Business Consulting, LLC, doing business as LIBERTYID Plaintiff - Appellant v. DR myCommerce, doing business as eSellerate; Digital River,
State v. Wolfepublic domain
[Cite as State v. Wolfe, 2025-Ohio-866.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 29759 : v.
Knightek, LLC v. Jive Commc'ns, Inc.public domain
Jurden, P.J. I. INTRODUCTION This dispute arises from Defendant, Jive Communication, Inc.'s ("Jive"),1 purchase of a business from Plaintiff, KnighTek, LLC ("KnighTek"),2 and a related entity. Following the purchase, KnighTek sued Jive for rescission based on fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. Jive suggests this is a case
Rall v. Tribune 365, LLCpublic domain
Filed 12/18/19; Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT FREDERICK THEODORE B284566 RALL III, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. BC613703) v. TRIBUNE 365, LLC, et al.,
Rall v. Tribune 365 LLCpublic domain
Filed 1/17/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT FREDERICK THEODORE B284566 RALL III, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. BC613703) v. TRIBUNE 365 LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles Cou
Healthsmart Pacific v. Kabateckpublic domain
Filed 1/10/17 Unmodified opinion attached IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE HEALTHSMART PACIFIC, INC., B264300 et al., (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC566549) Plaintiffs and Appellants, ORDER MO
Rall v. Tribune 365 LLCpublic domain
GRIMES, J. *483SUMMARY Plaintiff Frederick Theodore Rall III, a political cartoonist and blogger, sued Los Angeles Times Communications LLC (The Times) after it published a "note to readers" and a later more detailed report questioning the accuracy of a blog post plaintiff wrote for The Times. The Times told it
Healthsmart Pacific, Inc. v. Kabateckpublic domain
Opinion ROTHSCHILD, P. J. Plaintiffs Michael D. Drobot and Healthsmart Pacific, Inc., sued certain lawyers and their law firms for defamation and other causes of action arising from statements two of the lawyers made on television and radio programs about a pending lawsuit. The attorney defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic
Chavez v. Mendozapublic domain
Opinion HALLER, J. In the published portion of this opinion, we hold plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution cause of action was subject to a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we conclude plaintiffs met their burden to establish a probability they would prevail on thei
Chavez v. Mendozapublic domain
114 Cal.Rptr.2d 825 (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1083 Richard A. CHAVEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Enriqueta MENDOZA et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. D037586. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One. December 24, 2001. Rehearing Denied January 9, 2002. *827 Higgs, Fletche
Kizer v. Harperpublic domain
561 S.E.2d 368 (2001) 211 W.Va. 47 James D. KIZER and Joyce Kizer, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, v. Charles HARPER, Defendant Below, Appellant. No. 29694. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted October 3, 2001. Decided November 28, 2001. Dissenting Opinion of Justice Davis November 30, 2001.
Wetovick v. County of Nancepublic domain
782 N.W.2d 298 (2010) 279 Neb. 773 Rodney M. WETOVICK, Nance County Attorney, appellee and cross-appellant, v. The COUNTY OF NANCE, a body politic and corporate, et al., appellants and cross-appellees. No. S-08-1302. Supreme Court of Nebraska. April 29, 2010. *304 George E. Martin III and Aimee C. Bataillo
Divane v. Smithpublic domain
774 N.E.2d 361 (2002) 332 Ill. App.3d 548 266 Ill.Dec. 255 William T. DIVANE, Jr., Michael J. Caddigan, I. Steven Diamond, Samuel Evans, Michael Fitzgerald, Thomas C. Halperin, David A. Hardt, Daniel, Meyer, Richard Sipple, and Michael R. Walsdorf, as the Electrical Insurance Trustees, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dale W. SMITH, d/b/a Dover Distributing Co./Dover Telecommunications Co., Friedler Constr