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 “Stephen G. Crane”
Johnson v. Cranepublic domain
Petition, pursuant to CPLR article 78, for a judgment, in the nature of mandamus, to compel consideration of the source of assets offered as indemnification for a bail bond and of the background, character and reputation of the indemnitor, unanimously granted, on the law, without costs, and respondent directed to consider *538testimony relevant thereto in approving or disapproving bail (CPL 520.30).<
Goetz v. Cranepublic domain
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the prosecution of New York County indictment No. 1914/85, and to compel the dismissal of the said indictment, dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The petitioner in the instant proceeding stands charged in an indictment, handed up by a New York County Grand Jury, with four counts of an attempt to commit the crime of murder in the second degree, four counts of assault in the first d
Morgenthau v. Cranepublic domain
OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. The underlying criminal case herein arises out of a traffic accident which occurred on March 2, 1984 as a result of which the defendant, James Nuzzi, was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated and reckless driving. Upon arraignment, the case was routinely assigned to the Trial Bureau of the District Attorney’s office that was "on intake” on that date and followin
Magarl, L.L.C. v. Crane Co.public domain
533 F.Supp.2d 854 (2008) MAGARL, L.L.C. and Lawler Manufacturing Co., Inc., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO. and Mark Controls Corporation, both d/b/a Powers Process Controls; Watts Water Technologies Inc., d/b/a Powers, a Watts Industries Co.; and Sloan Valve Company, Defendants. No. 1:02-cv-0478-LJM-WTL. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. February 6, 2
Crane v. Commonwealthpublic domain
833 S.W.2d 813 (1992) Major CRANE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. No. 91-SC-122-MR. Supreme Court of Kentucky. May 14, 1992. Rehearing Denied August 28, 1992. *814 Frank W. Heft, Jr., Chief Appellate Defender of the Jefferson Dist. Public Defender, Larry D. Simon, Appellate Public Advocate, Dan
State v. Cranepublic domain
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice. |,The State brings this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure — Criminal 3 (2014) and contends that the circuit court erred in granting appellee Stephen Crane’s motion to suppress. On appeal, the State contends that, because the material-witness rule does not apply to search-and-seizure cases, the c
Palnik v. Cranepublic domain
[Cite as Palnik v. Crane, 2019-Ohio-3364.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA MATTHEW PALNIK, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 107400 v. : KRISTEN CRANE, :
Crane v. State of Tex.public domain
534 F.Supp. 1237 (1982) Stephen C. CRANE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. CA-3-80-0978-G. United States District Court, N. D. Texas, Dallas Division. March 11, 1982. Douglas R. Larson, Johnston & Larson, Peter Lesser, Dallas, Tex., for American Civil Liberties Union. Gerald C. Carruth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, T
Crane v. City of Arlingtonpublic domain
Case: 21-10644 Document: 00516492221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED
Crane v. City of Arlingtonpublic domain
Case: 21-10644 Document: 00516495724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2022 REVISED 10/4/22 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED
Alpha Crane Service, Inc. v. Capitol Crane Co.public domain
Bieluch, J. These appeals arise out of the denial by the trial court of seven motions to set aside various verdicts rendered in two actions consolidated for trial. The two cases are the result of a construction accident in which a crane operator died and a crane was damaged. The appellants have claimed a total of sixteen errors on appeal. We find error. *63
Crane v. Raber's Discount Tire Rackpublic domain
The Supreme Court of South Carolina Danny B. Crane, Petitioner, v. Raber's Discount Tire Rack, Employer, and South Carolina Uninsured Employers Fund, Carrier, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2018-000959 ORDER The petition for rehearing is denied. The attached opinion is substituted for the previous opinion, which is withdrawn.
Crane v. Raber's Discount Tire Rackpublic domain
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Danny B. Crane, Petitioner, v. Raber's Discount Tire Rack, Employer, and South Carolina Uninsured Employers' Fund, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2018-000959 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Commission Opinion No. 27951
Stephen Grant v. Steven Zornpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-3481 ___________________________ Stephen B. Grant, on behalf of The United States of America and on behalf of the State of Iowa Plaintiff - Appellee v. Steven Zorn; Iowa S
Crane v. Holderpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge. This is a civil action filed by the plaintiff, Tracy O. Crane, against the defendant, *1393Eric H. Holder, Jr., in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the United States, and head of the United States Department of Justice. (Doc. 16). The Amended Compl
State v. Cranepublic domain
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document New Mexico Compilation Commission, Santa Fe, NM '00'04- 10:16:01 2014.07.28 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW ME
Krik v. Crane Co.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN Z. LEE, United States District Judge In this asbestos personal injury case, Defendants Crane Co. (“Crane”), Exxon-Mobil Oil Corporation (“Mobil”), Owens-Illinois, Inc. (“Owens”), and the Marley-Wylain Company (fik/a Weil-McLain)1 (“Weil”) have variously moved the Court to bar Plaintiff Charles Krik (“Krik”) from calling certain expert witnesses a
Krik v. Crane Co.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER John Z. Lee, United States District Judge In this asbestos personal injury case, Defendants Crane Co. (“Crane”), Exxon-Mobil Oil Corporation (“Mobil”), and Owens-Illinois, Inc.1 (“Owens”) have variously moved the Court to bar Plaintiff Charles Krik (“Krik”) from calling certain expert witnesses at trial. Before the Court for decision are multiple mot
R.G. v. Ginnpublic domain
[Cite as R.G. v. Ginn, 2024-Ohio-2033.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [R.G.] Administrator of the Estate of : [A.G.], deceased, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : No. 23AP-665 Renee Ginn et al.,
State v. Cranepublic domain
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document New Mexico Compilation Commission, Santa Fe, NM '00'04- 15:24:47 2011.06.28 Certiorari Granted, June 8, 2011, Docket No. 33,014