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.
12 opinions for “Tate v. Hoback”
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2021 WY 128 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2021 November 24, 2021 J. WILLIAM WINNEY, JR. and LOUISE B. WINNEY, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. THE HOBACK RANCHES S-21-0057 PROPERTY OWNERS IMPROVEMENT AND SERVICE DISTRICT a/k/a Hoback Ranches Service and Improvement District and
Tessa Needham v. Merck & Company Inc.public domain
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1828 Doc: 55 Filed: 09/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 31 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1828 IN RE: GARDASIL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. ------------------------------ TESSA NEEDHAM, Plaintiff –
Angela Walker v. Merck & Company Inc.public domain
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1831 Doc: 53 Filed: 09/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 31 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1828 IN RE: GARDASIL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. ------------------------------ TESSA NEEDHAM, Plaintiff –
Shanie Roman v. Merck & Company Inc.public domain
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1832 Doc: 53 Filed: 09/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 31 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1828 IN RE: GARDASIL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. ------------------------------ TESSA NEEDHAM, Plaintiff –
Reginald Davis v. City of Memphispublic domain
02/16/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 19, 2017 Session REGINALD DAVIS v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-14-0630 Walter L. Evans, Chancellor No. W2016-00967-COA-R3-CV T
Heritage v. Statepublic domain
936 S.W.2d 499 (1996) 326 Ark. 839 Jimmy HERITAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. No. CR 96-735. Supreme Court of Arkansas. December 16, 1996. *500 Larry Dean Kissee, Ash Flat, for appellant. J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Atty. General, Little Rock, for appellee.
Aichner v. Aichnerpublic domain
215 Va. 624 (1975) JOAN LLOYD SEAVER AICHNER v. DONALD ROY AICHNER. Record No. 740549. Supreme Court of Virginia. March 10, 1975. Frank O. Meade (Meade, Tate, Meade & Daniel, on brief), for appellant. Charles E. Carter, for appellee. Present, All the Justices. 1. Evidence fails to show clearly that wife permanently and inexcusably ref
In re Parkspublic domain
Filed 8/3/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE In re B296998 JOANN PARKS (Los Angeles County On Habeas Corpus. Super. Ct. No. VA009503) ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of habeas corpus, William C. Ryan, Judge. Petition denied.
Banner v. Commonwealthpublic domain
204 Va. 640 (1963) JACK BANNER v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. Record No. 5624. Supreme Court of Virginia. December 2, 1963. M. M. Long and A. G. Lively, for the plaintiff in error. Present, All the Justices. 1. The car in which defendant was riding as a passenger was stopped by a state trooper who requested the driver to show his license. Defe
Phippen v. Durhampublic domain
MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not
Phippen v. Durhampublic domain
MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not
Phippen v. Durhampublic domain
MONCURE, J., after stating the case, proceeded: If the question were res integra, “Whether a deed of trust conveying all the property of a debtor for the benefit of such of his creditors as may within a specified time release him from all further claims; and providing that the surplus of the trust fund after satisfying the accepting creditors should be paid to the debtor, is valid against the creditors who do not