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.
7 opinions for “Wallace v. Mady Construction Company, Inc.”
ACCEPTED 06-15-00044-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 10/20/2015 7:43:29 PM
Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc.public domain
ACCEPTED 03-15-00416-CV 7412400 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
Brown v. City of Madisonvillepublic domain
GUIDRY, J. |2A truck driver appeals the allocation of fault and general damages awards rendered by the trial court pursuant to a jury verdict for an accident in which the trailer of his 18-wheeler collided with an overhanging tree limb while traveling down a state highway. The State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), separately appeals the trial court’s judgment finding it liable and
Day v. Patapsco & Back Rivers Railroadpublic domain
504 F.Supp. 1301 (1981) Wallace E. DAY et al. v. PATAPSCO & BACK RIVERS RAILROAD COMPANY et al. Civ. No. Y-76-1484. United States District Court, D. Maryland. January 15, 1981. *1302 *1303 Kenneth L. Johnson, Anthony W. Robinson, Baltimore, Md., and Dorothy R. Fait, Silver Spring, Md., for
McDonald v. City of Chicagopublic domain
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit
Tommy Parker, Jr. v. Mary Martha Parrackpublic domain
ACCEPTED 15-25-00075-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/17/2025 10:43 AM No. 15-25-00075-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2011 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit