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 “United States v. Coastal Waterproof”
Coastal Aviation, Inc. v. Commander Aircraft Co.public domain
903 F.Supp. 591 (1995) COASTAL AVIATION, INC., Plaintiffs, v. COMMANDER AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Defendant. No. 92 CV 4229 (BDP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. November 3, 1995. *592 John A. Tartaglia, White Plains, NY, for plaintiff. Philip M. Halpern, Pirro Collier Cohen Crystal & Bock, White Plains, NY, Rich
Sierra Club v. United States Forest Servicepublic domain
ORDER ORINDA D. EVANS, District Judge. This civil suit is before the Court for determination of remedies for the Defendants’ failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347, (“NEPA”) when preparing (1) Supplemental Environment Impact Statements (“SEISs”) which supplemented certain Vegetation Management Environmental Impact Statements (‘VMEISs”) and (2) 20
United States v. Diazpublic domain
55 F.Supp.2d 1362 (1999) UNITED STATES of America v. Antonio Fredy DIAZ, Jacinto Torres, Rudesindo Viveros, Francisco Zubiria, Defendants. No. 98-663-CR-DAVIS. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. February 11, 1999. Michael Mullaney, Assistant United States Attorney, Miami, FL, for plaintiff. Philip Horowitz, Miami, Fla., Alvin Entin, Fort Lauderdale,
United States v. Consolidated Rail Corp.public domain
729 F.Supp. 1461 (1990) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION; Sea-Port Services, Ltd., formerly Sealand, Ltd.; Oil Industries, Ltd.; Wayne Hawkins; Chem Clear, Inc.; Coopers Creek Chemical Corporation; Penn Fuel Gas, Inc.; Philadelphia Gas Works; Public Service Electric and Gas Company; and National Industrial Services, Inc., f/k/a Maine Coastal Service, Defendants. PENN FUEL GAS, INC.; Consolidated Rail Corpo
United Neurology, P.A. v. Hartford Lloyd's Insurancepublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER MELINDA HARMON, District Judge. The above referenced cause alleges breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of §§ 541.006(a) (unfair settlement practices) and 542.051 et seq. (prompt payment of claims) of the Texas Insurance Code and of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) §§ 17.41 et seq. (engaging in “false, misleadi
STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. I. Summary These consolidated actions were brought by subcontractors against the prime contractor Western States Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (“Western”) and its bonding company, seeking, inter alia, contract and quantum meruit damages relating to their work on construction of a live fire range at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. The project involved federal cont
Albano Cleaners, Inc. v. United Statespublic domain
Per Curiam : This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Saul Richard Gamer with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Rule 134(h). The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on October 7, 1971. No exceptions to or brief on this opinion and report have been filed by the parties and the times for so filing pursuant to the rules of the court
405 F.Supp. 904 (1975) UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of Leonardo MARIANA, Plaintiff, v. PIRACCI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 75-0342. United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 12, 1975. Francis J. Pelland, Herman M. Braude, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff. Harold F.
United States v. Mecklingpublic domain
R. DORSEY WATKINS, District Judge. On August 12, 1955, at about 2:30 p. m., the sailing vessel Levin J. Marvel (Marvel) capsized and sank in Herring Bay on the Western shore of Chesapeake Bay, with the loss of 14 of her 23 passengers. Thereafter, a two-count indictment was returned against the defendant, John H. Meckling, the Marvel’s master and part owner. The first count was brought under U.S.C. Title 18, § 1115, for misco
834 F.2d 1533 34 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) 75,407 The UNITED STATES of America, for the Use of C.J.C., INC., aNew Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.WESTERN STATES MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., a New Mexicocorporation; Commercial Union Insurance Co., aMassachusetts corporation; and Sandia Corporation, a NewMexico corporation, d/b/a Sandia National Laboratories,Defendants-Appellants.UNI
BEI BEACH, LLC v. Mashburn Christmanpublic domain
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals BEI-BEACH, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Mashburn Christman, JV, Lend Lease (US) Construction, Inc., f/k/a Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., and McCrory Construction Company, LLC, Defendants, v. Mashburn Christman, JV, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Wallcraft Construction, Inc.; Alpha Insulation & Waterproofing, Inc.; Baker Roofing, Inc.; Collins & Wright, Inc.; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; Old Republic Surety Company; Hartford Fire Insuran
The Ascot Corp., LLC v. I&R Waterproofingpublic domain
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022-NCCOA-747 No. COA22-19 Filed 15 November 2022 Moore County, No. 19-CVS-998 THE ASCOT CORPORATION, LLC; and HERONSBROOK, LLC; Plaintiffs, v. I&R WATERPROOFING, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. TREMCO BARRIER SOLUTIONS, INC.; TANGLEWOOD LANDSCAPING, LLC;
The Ascot Corp., LLC v. I&R Waterproofingpublic domain
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022-NCCOA-747 No. COA22-19 Filed 15 November 2022 Moore County, No. 19-CVS-998 THE ASCOT CORPORATION, LLC; and HERONSBROOK, LLC; Plaintiffs, v. I&R WATERPROOFING, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. TREMCO BARRIER SOLUTIONS, INC.; TANGLEWOOD LANDSCAPING, LLC;
Fine v. Huygens, DiMella, Shaffer & Associatespublic domain
Duefly, J. After our decision in this matter, see 55 Mass. App. Ct. 1114 (2002), issued pursuant to Appeals Court Rule 1:28, as amended, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (1998), we granted the petitions for rehearing submitted by three of the defendants, and heard argument thereon on November 26, 2002. Our earlier decision, reversing in part the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims as not timely filed, was in connection with the plaintiff
Admiral Ins. Co. v. Niagara Transformer Corp.public domain
21-2733 Admiral Ins. Co. v. Niagara Transformer Corp. United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2021 Argued: May 3, 2022 Decided: January 6, 2023 No. 21-2733 ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
City of N.Y. v. BP P.L.C.public domain
*467FOR PLAINTIFF CITY OF NEW YORK: Zachary W. Carter, Susan E. Amron, Kathleen C. Schmid, Margaret C. Holden, Noah Kazis, CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Steve W. Berman, Matthew F. Pawa, Benjamin A. Krass, Wesley Kelman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Christopher A. Seeger, Stephen A. Weiss, Diogenes P. Kekatos, SEEGER WEISS LLP. FOR DEF
Melton v. Century Arms, Inc.public domain
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND . DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FEDERICO A. MORENO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ' This case is a products liability class action brought by owners of various rifles manufactured by Century Arms, Inc., Century International Arms Corporation, Century Arms of Vermont, Inc., and Century International Arms of Vermont, Inc, (collectively, “Century”). Plaintiffs all
Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diegopublic domain
Filed 3/15/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DON'T CELL OUR PARKS, D071863 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2015-00026359- CU-TT-CTL) CITY OF SAN DIE
Miralda v. Gonzalezpublic domain
ROSEMARY LEDET, Judge. Lin this legal malpractice action, the plaintiff, Marco Tulio Miralda, appeals the trial court’s judgment granting the peremptory exception .of peremption filed by the defendants, Romauldo Gonzalez, Sr., and the Law Offices of Romauldo Gonzalez, L.L.C. d/b/a Braden Gonzalez and Associates (collectively “Mr. Gonzalez”). Because we find the trial court properly applied the one-year peremptive period se
Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diegopublic domain
NARES, J. *297*344San Diego City Charter section 55 (Charter 55) provides that real property formally dedicated in perpetuity "for park, recreation or cemetery purposes shall not be used for any but park, recreation or cemetery purposes without such chang