⚖ 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 “Tracey D Ford”

District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017-07-19 · Published · cited 1× · 223 So. 3d 448; 2017 WL 3040046; 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 10393
CASANUEVA, Judge. William J. Tracey, as personal representative of the Estate of Betty I. Tracey, petitions this court for certiorari review of an order denying his motion to consolidate two wrongful death actions. We conclude *450 that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · 2000-06-30 · Published · cited 7× · 250 B.R. 468; 2000 BNH 27; 2000 Bankr. LEXIS 795; 36 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 118; 2000 WL 1015969
250 B.R. 468 (2000) In re Timothy J. TRACEY and Jane R. Tracey, Debtors. Myron Chapman, Plaintiff, v. Timothy J. Tracey and Jane R. Tracey, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 98-14766-MWV. Adversary No. 99-1129-MWV. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire. June 30, 2000. *469 Geraldine Karonis, Assistant U.S. Trustee, Manche
Babbert v. Fordpublic domain
North Carolina Industrial Commission · 2009-02-26 · Published · cited 0×
*********** The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and argument of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to receive further evidence or rehear the parties or their representatives. Following its review, the Full Commission affirms the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner, with certain modifications. The Fu
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2024-09-04 · Published · cited 0× · 2024 Ark. App. 406
Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 406 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-23-415 Opinion Delivered September 4, 2024 TRACEY HOLLINGSWORTH APPEAL FROM THE MADISON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2024-09-06 · Published · cited 0×
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case Nos. 6D2023-0544, 6D2023-2519 CONSOLIDATED Lower Tribunal No. 2019-DR-002765-FM01-XX _____________________________ CHRISTOPHER T. KNOTT, Appellant, v.
Michigan Supreme Court · 2007-07-25 · Published · cited 3× · 479 Mich. 498
CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting). I dissent from the majority opinion because I do not believe that this Court should substantively decide this appeal. In fact, without the participation of Justice YOUNG, who strongly believes that this Court lacks the constitutional authority to answer the certified question,1 this Court would not have answered the question. I would point out the curiosity that Justice YOUN
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · 2003-04-16 · Published · cited 0× · 292 B.R. 101; 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 345; 2003 WL 1904560
292 B.R. 101 (2003) In re Tracey F. DRAZENOVICH, Debtor. Tracey F. Drazenovich, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Credit Co., et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 01-24155-DK. Adversary No. 02-1022-DK. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland, at Greenbelt. April 16, 2003. *102 *103 Barbara I. Ber
Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · 2024-05-15 · Published · cited 0×
NO. 12-23-00269-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS WILLIAM TRACEY BRUMIT, § APPEAL FROM THE 8TH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § RAINS COUNTY, TEXAS
Wilmot v. Traceypublic domain
District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013-03-28 · Published · cited 12× · 938 F. Supp. 2d 116; 2013 WL 1290629
ORDER TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN, District Judge. Granting [34] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Granting [36] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Granting [47] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; and Granting [51] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS DEIN,
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2025-06-12 · Published · cited 2× · 140 F.4th 1069
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TRACEY L. BROWN, No. 23-15594 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:19-cv-02000- JAD-DJA ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA; RONALD OLIVER, OPINION Respondents-Appe
Malone v. Fordpublic domain
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021-01-29 · Published · cited 1× · 2021 Ohio 330
[Cite as Malone v. Ford, 2021-Ohio-330.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PIKE COUNTY FOREST J. MALONE, : Case No. 20CA903 Plaintiff-Appellant, : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY RICHARD FORD, ET AL.,
Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · 2024-05-23 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., May 23, 2024 Employer Below, Petitioner ASHLEY N. DEEM, DEPUTY CLERK INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
Ford, Jon Thomaspublic domain
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2015-12-16 · Published · cited 44× · 477 S.W.3d 321; 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1412; 2015 WL 8957647
NEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KELLER, P.J., MEYERS, JOHNSON, KEASLER, HERVEY, ALCALA and RICHARDSON, JJ., joined. Did the State’s warrantless acquisition of four days worth of historical cell-site-location information—recorded by Jon Thomas Ford’s cell-phone service provider'—violate the Fourth Amend
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2023-04-21 · Published · cited 24× · 65 F.4th 851
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0080p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ IN RE: FORD MOTOR COMPANY F-150 AND RANGER TRUCK FUEL ECONOMY │ MARKETING AND SALES PRACTIC
Ford, Jon Thomaspublic domain
Court of Appeals of Texas · 2015-04-30 · Published · cited 0×
PD1396-14 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS April 30, 2015 Transmitted 4/28/2015 8:43:26 PM Accepted 4/30/2015 12:20:50 PM
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2013-02-26 · Published · cited 33× · 2013 Md. LEXIS 695; 433 Md. 426; 71 A.3d 105
HARRELL, J. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is a companion case1 brought by residents of Jacksonville, Maryland,2 against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Petition*436er)3 for an underground gasoline leak from an Exxon Mobil-owned gasoline service station, located at the corner of
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · 2026-03-12 · Published · cited 0×
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00048-CV ___________________________ TRACEY LYNN WALTHER, Appellant V. DAVID MICHAEL WALTHER, Appellee On Appeal from the 367th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-0896-367 Before Kerr, Bassel, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2012-02-09 · Published · cited 0× · 204 Md. App. 1; 40 A.3d 514; 42 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20049; 2012 WL 426748; 2012 Md. App. LEXIS 16
EYLER, JAMES R., J., concurring and dissenting, in which HOTTEN, J., joins. These consolidated cases arise from the leakage of gasoline from a gasoline service station, located at the corner of Jarrettsville Pike and Paper Mill Road in the Jacksonville area of Baltimore County. The station was owned by Exxon-Mobil Corporation, appellant. The leak occurred, on January 13, 2006, whe
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 2004-05-24 · Published · cited 7× · 317 B.R. 865; 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 2256; 2004 WL 2904895
317 B.R. 865 (2004) In re Stephanie RUTHERFORD, Debtor. Stephanie Rutherford, Plaintiff, v. William D. Ford Direct Loan Program, Defendant. Bankruptcy Nos. 02-05085-BGC-7, Adversary No. 02-00208. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division. May 24, 2004. *867 Helen Ball, Kenneth Lay, Legal Services, Birmin
Superior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2006-11-30 · Published · cited 0× · 48 V.I. 141; 2006 WL 3937343; 2006 V.I. LEXIS 28
DONOHUE, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION (November 30, 2006) This matter is before the Court on Third-Party Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion to Dismiss for Spoliation of Evidence or, in the alternative for Lack of Prosecution. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED on both grounds. *144