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 “WILFRED P. HATCH”
Wilfred Jones v. United Statespublic domain
Case: 18-30776 Document: 00515094961 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-30776 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 28, 2019 WILFRED
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court
Jones v. United Statespublic domain
SARAH S. VANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is defendant United States of America's motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND This Jones Act case arises out of an alleged slip-and-fall aboard the M/V CAPE KNOX, a vessel owned by the United
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr
Roach v. University of Utahpublic domain
968 F.Supp. 1446 (1997) Kenneth ROACH, Plaintiff, v. The UNIVERSITY OF UTAH et al., Defendants. Civil No. 2:94-CV-163C. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. June 20, 1997. *1447 *1448 Jeffrey D. Eisenberg & Paul M. Simmons, Wilcox, Dewsnup & King, Salt Lake City, UT
Scozzafava v. Liebpublic domain
190 Cal.App.3d 1575 (1987) 236 Cal. Rptr. 129 GAIL SCOZZAFAVA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILFRED H. LIEB, Defendant and Respondent. Docket No. A033047. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four. April 10, 1987. *1576 COUNSEL Tom Thorner and Roth & Thorner for Plaintiff and
Clay v. Daiichi Shippingpublic domain
74 F.Supp.2d 665 (1999) Joseph CLAY, Jr., Husband of/and Ora Clay v. DAIICHI SHIPPING and the M/V Atlantic Bulker, in Rem et al. No. Civ.A. 97-3630. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. November 10, 1999. *666 Lloyd N. Frischhertz, Seelig, Cosse, Frischhertz & Poulliard, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs. Daphne
Voss v. Johnson & Johnsonpublic domain
JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. The instant motions concern the cases of five plaintiffs (“Phase 1 Minnesota plaintiffs” or “plaintiffs”) whose actions have been consolidated with hundreds of other cases in this multidistrict litigation. Plaintiffs assert injuries resulting from the use of Levaquin, an antibiotic medication. Defendants have filed substantively identical joint motions for partial judgment on
In Re Levaquin Products Liability Litigationpublic domain
752 F.Supp.2d 1071 (2010) In re LEVAQUIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This Document Relates to: William Voss, Sharon Johnson, and Harold Wampler, Plaintiffs, Richard Kirkes, William Laufenberg, and Billie Johnson, Plaintiffs, Calvin Christensen, Edward Karkoska, Jerry Cullins, and Wilfred Delude, Plaintiffs, John Schedin, Plaintiff, Eugene Martinka, Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson; Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.;
Lawson v. Fmr Co., Inc.public domain
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 10-2240 JACKIE HOSANG LAWSON; JONATHAN M. ZANG, Plaintiffs, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. FMR LLC, f/k/a FMR Corp.; FMR CO., INC.; FMR CORP., d/b/a Fidelity Investments; FMR LLC, d/b/a Fidelity Investments; FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Fidelity Investments; FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY,
Rice v. Winkelman Bros. Apparel, Inc.public domain
13 Mich. App. 281 (1968) 164 N.W.2d 417 RICE v. WINKELMAN BROTHERS APPAREL, INC. Docket No. 2,212. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided September 24, 1968. Leave to appeal denied January 21, 1969. Wilfred C. Rice, in propria persona. Alexander, Buchanan & Conklin (Floyd S. Wescott, of counsel), for defe
Fowler, S. The motion to confirm the report of the learned and painstaking referee has been resisted with such minuteness and wealth of authority as to present almost every fact found by the referee and conclusion reached by him for review by the surrogate. The oral arguments alone consumed some sessions of this court and the briefs subsequently submitted by counsel are elaborated and careful beyond precedent in my experience her
Cummings v. Godinpublic domain
377 A.2d 1071 (1977) John A. CUMMINGS, Mayor of the City of Woonsocket, v. Wilfred L. GODIN. No. 75-318-Appeal. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. August 30, 1977. *1072 Gerald M. Brenner, Asst. City Solicitor, Woonsocket, for plaintiff. Abedon, Stanzler, Biener, Skolnik & Lipsey, Richard A. Skolnik, Providence, for defend
National Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Smithpublic domain
Opinion Per Curiam. PER CURIAM: Appellants challenge the constitutionality of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, (the Act), Pub.L. No. 95-555, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), 92 Stat. 2076, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Guidelines on Sex Discrimination, 29 C.F.R. Part 1604, which interpret the Act. Their principal contention is that in the exercise of their First Amendment right to freedom of reli
Lowry v. A/S D/S Svendborgpublic domain
*641MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SUR MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL (Document 42) VAN DUSEN, District Judge. This case is before the court on the plaintiff’s Motion For A New Trial (Document 42), filed after the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant upon the special verdict of the jury.1 On the morning of Novemb
Helen Mascuilli, Administratrix of the Estate of Albert Mascuilli, Deceased v. United Statespublic domain
GANEY, Circuit Judge (concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority, but not fgr all of the reasons upon which they predicate it. The reason given by the majority for reversing the lower court and remanding the matter for trial is, quoting the Government’s brief, “The origin of the excessive strain and how it was generated, the
Berkley v. United Statespublic domain
PROST, Circuit Judge. This is a military pay class action case brought on behalf of officers of the United States Air Force terminated pursuant to a 1993 Reduction in Force (“RIF”). The basis of their complaint is that the formal instructions governing selection for involuntary termination required different treatment of officers based on their race or gender, thereby violating the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amen
In re City of Detroitpublic domain
Opinion Regarding Eligibilitg STEVEN RHODES, Bankruptcy Judge. The Congress shall have Power To ... establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.... Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution No ... law impairing the obligation of contract shall be enacted. Article I, Section 10, Michigan
Farmers Grain Cooperative v. Fredricksonpublic domain
WORTHEN, Justice. Appeal from a judgment entered on the jury’s verdict awarding defendant damages for breach of warranty and negligence with respect to nutritional deficiencies in turkey feed furnished defendant by plaintiff. •Defendant in 1953 contracted with plaintiff to raise 5,000 turkeys on its feed. He executed a note and mortgage on the birds to secure the advances of feed. The mortgage required de
Williams v. New Orleans Steamship Ass'npublic domain
466 F.Supp. 662 (1979) George James WILLIAMS, Duralph S. Hayes and Ernest W. Turner, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW ORLEANS STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION, Abingdon Steamship Corp., Riverside Stevedore, Inc., Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., Ayers Steamship Company, Inc., Cooper Stevedoring of Louisiana, Inc., Dalton Steamship Corp., Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., Gulf Motorships, Inc., Hansen and Tidemann, Inc