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 “Vargas v. Pierre”
State v. Vargaspublic domain
SEVERSON, Justice. [¶ 1.] A jury found Defendant, Alfredo Vargas, guilty of attempted fetal homicide. He appeals, alleging that attempted fetal homicide is a legal impossibility and that the circuit court made erroneous evidentia-ry rulings. We reverse. Background [¶ 2.] A jury found Defendant guilty of attempted fetal homicide.
United States v. Pierrepublic domain
Case: 22-20515 Document: 00516997131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT PB DEVELOPERS, LLC, IVAN M. VARGAS, and JUAN V. VARGAS, Appellants, v. YRSI, LLC, Appellee. No. 4D22-2377 [August 2, 2023] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm B
ROSALES VARGAS and ROSALES ROSALESpublic domain
Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 745 (BIA 2020) Interim Decision #3973 Matter of Juana ROSALES VARGAS, Respondent Jonathan Jair ROSALES ROSALES, Respondent Decided January 9, 2020 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals A notice to appear that does not include the address of t
Pierre v. Holderpublic domain
*43 PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Petitioner Clerde Pierre, a citizen of Haiti, seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and rejecting Pierre’s claim to automatic derivative citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. § 1482(
Matter of Burrus v. Vargaspublic domain
Matter of Burrus v Vargas 2026 NY Slip Op 01961 April 1, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Tiwan Burrus, respondent, v Aliya Vargas, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matte
Vargas v. Statepublic domain
852 S.W.2d 43 (1993) Mario Ramos VARGAS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 08-91-00426-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. March 31, 1993. *44 Gary Hill, El Paso, for appellant. Jaime E. Esparza, Dist. Atty., El Paso, for appellee. Before KOEHLER, BARAJAS and LARSEN, JJ. OPI
FEINBERG, Circuit Judge: Defendants Ramon Rodriguez-Gonzalez and Reuben Vargas-Santanas appeal from sentences imposed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, after a jury trial before Judge Pierre N. Leval. Appellants were both convicted of various narcotics offenses, specifically violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), 841(b)(1)
Vega v. Vivonipublic domain
389 F.Supp.2d 160 (2005) Eileen VEGA and Miguel Carrasquillo, Plaintiff(s) v. Pierre VIVONI, Superintendent of the Puerto Rico Police Department, et. al. Defendants No. CIV. 02-1754(JAG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. August 1, 2005. *161 Wilma E. Reveron-Collazo, Esq., San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs.
Diaz Ex Rel Lopez Claudio v. Vivonipublic domain
301 F.Supp.2d 92 (2003) Pedro Casillas DIAZ, et al, Plaintiffs v. Pierre VIVONI, et al, Defendants. Civil No. 01-2238 (JAG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. December 31, 2003. *93 Daliah Lugo-Auffant, Miguel A. Perez-Vargas, Perez Vargas & Lugo Auffant Law Offices, Hato Rey, PR, for Plaintiffs. Ana M. Mar
Jordan v. Allstate Insurancepublic domain
245 P.3d 1214 (2010) 2010-NMSC-051 Rosemary JORDAN, Scott Jordan, Tracey Jordan, Donald Romero, and Theresa Romero, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Petitioner. Donald Romero and Theresa Romero, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company, Defendant-Petitioner. Consuelo Lucero, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David Trujillo, Safeco Insurance Company
MEMORANDUM ORDER JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. This case involves a scheme by which a division of the Countrywide Defendants,1 headed by defendant Mairone, sold mortgage loans to government-sponsored entities2 by representing they were investment quality when, in fact, as a result of an initiative called the High Speed Swim Lane (or “HSSL”),
Castro Rivera v. Fagundopublic domain
310 F.Supp.2d 428 (2004) Ezequiel CASTRO RIVERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Fernando FAGUNDO, et al., Defendants. No. CIV. 03-1287(RLA). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. March 18, 2004. *429 *430 Ricardo Burgos-Vargas, Bufete E. Umpierre Suarez CSP, San Juan, PR, for Fernando Fagundo,
Rome v. Ingram Barge Co.public domain
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY, Judge. | ¿The defendant, Ingram Barge Company, appeals a preliminary injunction issued to prevent Ingram from mooring or docking its boats and barges on the plaintiffs’ property. We affirm. FACTS The plaintiffs are owners of five contiguous tracts of immovable property with 1,500 feet of batture frontage along the Mississippi River in St. James Parish, ne
United States v. Countrywide Financial Corp.public domain
OPINION JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. On August 27, 2013, the Court denied, by “bottom-line” Order, the motion of the Bank Defendants1 and individual defen*248dant Rebecca Mairone (“Mairone”) for summary judgment in the above-captioned case and ordered the parties to proceed to trial. The Court noted that it
Polycarpe v. E&S Landscaping Service, Inc.public domain
616 F.3d 1217 (2010) Resias POLYCARPE, Reynold Sully, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. E&S LANDSCAPING SERVICE, INC., Ernst Mayard, Defendants-Appellees. Pierre C. Bien-Aime, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nanak's Landscaping, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Reinaldo Ramon Lamonica, Reonaldo Gomez Morsa, Augustin Milan, Angeles Lamonica Soler, Mario Feliciano, Guillermo Alborez, Julio Alborez, Giovani Per
United States v. Countrywide Financial Corp.public domain
OPINION JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. The Government, having intervened in what began as a “qui tam” case, brings *601this civil fraud action against defendants Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Countrywide Bank, FSB (collectively, “Countrywide”), Bank of America Corporation, and Bank of America, NA (c
OPINION AND ORDER JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge. Early in the Great Recession, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought suit against the three most senior executives of Countrywide Financial Corporation,1 alleging that the company, at their behest, had falsely assured investors that, in the period from 2005 to 2007, it was
Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Sotomayorpublic domain
Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Sotomayor (2023 NY Slip Op 06277) Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Sotomayor 2023 NY Slip Op 06277 Decided on December 6, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reportin
Matter of Magana v. Delphpublic domain
Matter of Magana v Delph (2018 NY Slip Op 05167) Matter of Magana v Delph 2018 NY Slip Op 05167 Decided on July 11, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to