⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

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 “Wasp”

Matter of Wasppublic domain
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019-02-27 · Published · cited 0× · 2019 NY Slip Op 1423
Matter of Wasp (2019 NY Slip Op 01423) Matter of Wasp 2019 NY Slip Op 01423 Decided on February 27, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Per Curiam. Published by New York Stat
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2022-01-13 · Published · cited 0×
Case: 20-40411 Document: 00516166706 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 13, 2022 No. 20-40411
District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2014-03-11 · Published · cited 4× · 5 F. Supp. 3d 856; 88 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 157; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30997; 2014 WL 949903
MEMORANDUM OPINION THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Designed Conveyor Systems, Inc.’s (“DCS”) Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Christopher S. Kel-ter (Docket No. 73). Kelter has responded, (Docket No. 77), as has Co-Defendant Conken Systems, Inc. (“Conken”). (Docket No. 76.) DCS has replied. (Docket No. 79). This matter is now ri
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · 2020-10-29 · Published · cited 0×
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 13-19-00128-CV United Specialty Insurance Company v. Wasp Construction, LLC On Appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C-1928-17-D(1) JUDGMENT T
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · 2020-10-29 · Published · cited 0×
NUMBER 13-19-00127-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Appellee. On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. NUMBER 13-19-00128-CV
Wasp v. Statepublic domain
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1994-07-08 · Published · cited 11× · 647 So. 2d 81; 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 252; 1994 WL 321848
Faky Wasp, the appellant, was convicted of receiving stolen property in the second degree and was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to 20 years' imprisonment. He raises three issues on this direct appeal from that conviction. I The appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case because the State failed to prove that the appellant knew that the property was stolen and failed to
Matter of Wasppublic domain
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · 1992-02-18 · Published · cited 14× · 137 B.R. 71; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 11; 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 1273; 1992 WL 31253
137 B.R. 71 (1992) In the Matter of Dennis James WASP and Anne Marie Wasp, Debtors. Bankruptcy No. 91-2091-8B7. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. February 18, 1992. Gregory F. Boyer, Tampa, Fla., for debtor. Charles L. Weissing, Tampa, Fla., U.S. Trustee. Roger Hartley, Clearwater, Fla., and Gordon L. Kiester, Tampa, Fla., for movan
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1983-10-17 · Published · cited 21× · 658 S.W.2d 397; 280 Ark. 420; 80 Oil & Gas Rep. 242; 1983 Ark. LEXIS 1523
Robert H. Dudley, Justice. This case began as a simple quiet title action but, before completion, constituted a multi-party action involving not only the quiet title action but also a defamation action arising out of the disputed title. In accordance with one of the tenets of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial judge allowed a third party plaintiff to enter and a third party defendant to be br
The Wasppublic domain
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1812-05-15 · Published · cited 0× · 29 F. Cas. 368; 1 Gall. 140
STORY, Circuit Justice. The libel contains two counts, founded on the 3d section of the act of 28th June, 1809, c. 9. The first count alleges, that the brig departed from Charleston in South Carolina, with a *369cargo, to an interdicted port, to wit, Liverpool in Great Britain, without a clearance for said port. The second count alleges that the hrig departed from said C
Hudson v. The Wasppublic domain
District Court, E.D. New York · 1888-03-03 · Published · cited 0× · 34 F. 222; 1888 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37
Benedict, J. This is an action against the barge Wasp, to recover for a salvage service claimed to have been rendered that barge in December, 1885, by the tug McCaulley. It appears that in December, 1885, the tug America, while engaged in towing the barge Wasp and the barge *223Hornet from Norfolk, Va., to New London, Conn., met with heavy-weather, which caused her to tak
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2021-08-27 · Published · cited 0×
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 27, 2021 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00057-CV NOVO POINT, LLC, QUANTEC, LLC, RPV, LTD., AND JEFFREY BARON, Appellants V. ELISA KATZ, GARY SCHEPPS, DOMAIN VAULT, LLC, DOMAIN PROTECTION, LLC, NAME.COM, INC., SHAWN FRAZIN, AND SEA
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2021-09-14 · Published · cited 0×
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 14, 2021 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00057-CV NOVO POINT, LLC, QUANTEC, LLC, RPV, LTD., AND JEFFREY BARON, Appellants V. ELISA KATZ, GARY SCHEPPS, DOMAIN VAULT, LLC, DOMAIN PROTECTION, LLC, NAME.COM, INC. SHAWN FRAZIN, AND SEA
District Court, D. Washington · 1898-04-04 · Published · cited 0× · 86 F. 470; 1898 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163
HANFORD, District Judge. The lessees of the steam tug Wasp entered into a contract with the libelants to tow a raft of cedar logs from Utsalady to the libelants’ shingle mill at Ballard, and, in consideration of the price for towing, agreed to be paid, guarantied the safe delivery of the logs. At the entrance to Salmon Bay, the tug, with her tow, encountered difficulties, and was delayed, and, when the raft was delivered at the
State v. Kashatpublic domain
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-15 · Published · cited 0× · 2026 Ohio 2254
[Cite as State v. Kashat, 2026-Ohio-2254.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-P-0054 CITY OF RAVENNA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the Municipal Court, Ravenna Division - vs - DONNA M. KASHAT,
Ohio Court of Appeals · 1985-09-12 · Published · cited 7× · 499 N.E.2d 337; 27 Ohio App. 3d 13; 27 Ohio B. 14; 1985 Ohio App. LEXIS 10271
I would grant the motion to stay proceedings pending action on the 60(B) motion.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2015-03-30 · Published · cited 0×
LAUREN GRAHAM AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS California I Illinois I N e w York I Texas 3/23/2015 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL:7014 2870 0000 9003 4203 Third Court of Appeals PO Box 12547, Austin, Texas 78711-2547 RE: In re Christopher L. Graham, Court of Appeals Number: 0-3-14-00270-CV; Trial C
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2024-04-24 · Published · cited 0×
Affirmed and Opinion Filed April 24, 2024 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01189-CR JOSHUA LOUDELL BASHAM, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Hunt County, Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · 2025-05-13 · Published · cited 0×
Opinion issued May 13, 2025 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00563-CR ——————————— RAMON TORRES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2021-10-14 · Published · cited 6× · 631 S.W.3d 555; 2021 Ark. 179
Cite as 2021 Ark. 179 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Date: 2022.06.15 13:49:40 No. CV-21-163 -05'00' Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.001.20117 Opinion Delivered: October 14, 2021 DAN LARRY PENNINGTON; NORMA J. BRYANT; AARON
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2022-03-11 · Published · cited 13× · 27 F.4th 1120
Case: 20-50795 Document: 00516234504 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 11, 202