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.
6 opinions for “United States v. Tiburcio-Rivera”
Nery v. United Statespublic domain
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. ORDER The United States moves for summary affirmance of the April 30, 1998 order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granting the United States’ motion for summary judgment. Leonardo Nery et al. oppose. Nery et al. served the United States as New Philippine Scouts during and after World War II. Nery et al. filed a civil action
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pariserpublic domain
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pariser (2022 NY Slip Op 04534) Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pariser 2022 NY Slip Op 04534 Decided on July 13, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pu
Ayala-Villanueva v. Holderpublic domain
572 F.3d 736 (2009) Wilsonis AYALA-VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 07-70110. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 11, 2009.[*] Filed July 14, 2009. *737 Leon Rosen, Law Office of Leon Rosen, Las Vegas, NV, for the petitioner.
State v. John H. Silvapublic domain
OPINION Justice ROBINSON, for the Court. The defendant, John H. Silva, appeals from a judgment of conviction on six criminal counts relating to a shooting. On appeal, the defendant contends that, in denying his motion for a new trial, the trial justice overlooked and misconceived material evidence and failed to draw the appropriate inferences from the ev
Ayala-Villanueva v. Holderpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILSONIS AYALA-VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, No. 07-70110 v. Agency No. A037-300-465 ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, OPINION Respondent.
Torres v. Lock Joint Pipe Co.public domain
COOPER, District Judge. This case was tried before me without a jury on March 30, 1943. The question *6for decision is the applicability of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., to the work performed by plaintiffs as employees of the defendant. If the Court shall find in favor of the plaintiffs it will then be necessary to determine the amount due to ea