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.
15 opinions for “Thomas Edward Dorsey and Paige Marie Dorsey”
Paige v. Graypublic domain
437 F.Supp. 137 (1977) Fanny PAIGE et al., Plaintiffs, v. James GRAY et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 74-50-ALB. United States District Court, M. D. Georgia, Albany Division. August 24, 1977. *138 *139 *140 *141 Mary M. Y
ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV
ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV
Carthan v. Snyder (In re Flint Water Cases)public domain
JUDITH E. LEVY, United States District Judge *822This is a class action lawsuit that is part of the litigation collectively referred to as the Flint Water Cases. To those following these cases, the facts are by now well known. Plaintiffs, residents and property owners in Flint, Michigan, were exposed to lead, legionella, and other contaminants within the municipal wate
IN RE: Administrative Suspension Pursuant to Rule 219 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcementpublic domain
NOTICE: The attorneys on the attached list have the opportunity to comply with outstanding requirements prior to the effective date of the Supreme Court Order and not be administratively suspended. The current license status of a Pennsylvania attorney can be found on the Disciplinary Board’s website. https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the- public/find-attorney Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Attorneys Certified for Administrative Suspensi
Communications Workers of America v. Whitmanpublic domain
The opinion of the court was delivered by LANDAU, J.A.D. This is an appeal from a R. 4:6-2(e) order of dismissal. The plaintiffs in this case are the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and individual members of that union who were formerly State employees at certain State-operated Motor Vehicle (MV) agencies which were re-privatized in 1995 by an executive order of reorganization issued
Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc
Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc
Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp.public domain
Eldon E. Fallon, U.S. District Court Judge *623Before the Court are two motions to dismiss without prejudice filed by Plaintiffs *624Herman LeBlanc, R. Doc. 569, and Donnie Beasley, R. Doc. 572. The motions are opposed. R. Doc. 579. Plaintiffs have filed a reply. R. Doc. 590. Havin
*465SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Ellen Mariani’s (“Mariani”) husband, Louis Mariani, was a passenger on one of the planes flown into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In 2001, Mariani filed a wrongful death and survival suit in the Southern District of New York against a number of parties, individually and on behalf of her husband’s estate. Mariani v. United Air Lines,
*465SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Ellen Mariani’s (“Mariani”) husband, Louis Mariani, was a passenger on one of the planes flown into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In 2001, Mariani filed a wrongful death and survival suit in the Southern District of New York against a number of parties, individually and on behalf of her husband’s estate. Mariani v. United Air Lines,
East v. Garrett & Wifepublic domain
Richardson, J., after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. This case turns upon the proper construction to be given to the fifth item of the last will and testament of Dr. Southey S. Satehell, late of Accomac. That item of the testator’s will is for convenience here reproduced: “ 5th. I give to Edward P. East and his legitimate children forever, the farm which I pr
Fogal v. Pirropublic domain
I. April, 1860.—Trial by the court. This action was brought by Catharine Fogal, Sophia Randall, Peter Provoost, Amanda Tyte, Charles M. Day, John Eogal, Alexander Tyte, and Colloon Randall, against Joseph Pirro, and John Raab, to redeem a certain lot in Essex-street, New York city, alleged, in the complaint, to belong in fee ,to the plaintiffs, from the operation of a certain mortgage, and to regain the premises. The
Plummer v. Robertspublic domain
The above cases present cross-appeals taken from the judgment of the circuit court in a suit to construe the will of John D. Richardson, deceased, instituted by E.D. Plummer and Ralph E. Costigan, trustees thereunder, against Evalina M. Roberts and others constituting the heirs at law of said deceased and the legatees named in said will. E.D. Plummer is one of the trustees named in the will, and Ralph E. Costigan is the successor of H.L. Stevenson, the other trustee named in said will. Estell
Smith's Adm'r v. Charlton's Adm'rpublic domain
DANIEL, J. The judgment upon which the decree sought to be reversed is founded, was rendered in the year 1802. No steps appear to have been taken to enforce the judgment until the institution of this suit in the year 1840. Thomas Smith the intestate of the appellant William P. Smith, in his answer to the bill, set up two defences, to wit, the statute of limitations, and the presumption of satisfaction arising