⚖ 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 “Woodrow Bradley Seals”

District Court, S.D. Texas · 1966-01-06 · Published · cited 7× · 252 F. Supp. 804; 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8196
252 F.Supp. 804 (1966) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Harry E. BRADLEY, Aircraft Charters, Inc. and Houston Aviation Products Corp., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 65-H-845. United States District Court S. D. Texas, Houston Division. January 6, 1966. Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., and William B. Butler, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff. E. P. De
Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2017-06-27 · Published · cited 64× · 376 Wis. 2d 147; 2017 WI 67; 897 N.W.2d 384; 2017 WL 2774204; 2017 Wisc. LEXIS 385
2017 WI 67 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2016AP275 COMPLETE TITLE: The Honorable William M. Gabler, Sr., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Crime Victims Rights Board, Respondent-Appellant,
District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1972-01-10 · Published · cited 20× · 338 F. Supp. 67; 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15644
338 F.Supp. 67 (1972) Carolyn BRADLEY et al. v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF the CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, et al. Civ. A. No. 3353. United States District Court, E. D. Virginia, Richmond Division. January 5, 1972. Order January 10, 1972. *68 *69 *70
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2015-08-20 · Published · cited 0× · 123 Fed. Cl. 74; 2015 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1065; 2015 WL 4971159
*76 RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 12(b)(6); U.S. Savings Bonds; 31 C.F.R. § 315.20; “Valid, Judicial Proceedings”; Title-Based Es-cheat; Breach of Contract; Third-Party Beneficiary; Fifth Amendment Taking OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge. In this action, Plaintif
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1975-04-30 · Published · cited 0× · 54 Ala. App. 699; 312 So. 2d 392; 1975 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 622
This is an appeal by defendant from a jury verdict and judgment thereon in favor of the plaintiff for breach of a contract. The plaintiff has filed with this court a motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court for failure of appellant-defendant to timely file the transcript of the evidence. We find the motion to be well taken and appellee-plaintiff's motion is granted. The following pertinent information is gleaned from the record: May 30, 1974 — verdi
Montana Supreme Court · 2007-08-06 · Published · cited 109× · 2007 MT 183; 165 P.3d 1079; 338 Mont. 259; 2007 Mont. LEXIS 358
JUSTICE MORRIS delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Sunburst School District No. 2 and approximately ninety adjoining private property owners (collectively Sunburst) sued Texaco Inc. (Texaco) for damages caused by the migration of benzene onto their properties from Texaco’s neighboring refinery. Texaco appeals from a judgment in the Eighth Judicial District, Cas
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2014-04-16 · Published · cited 0× · 120 F. Supp. 3d 1190; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185338; 2014 WL 10962253
ORDER LEE R. WEST, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Since the Treaty of Hopewell was signed on January 3, 1786, by The Choctaw Nation (“Choctaw Nation”) and on January 10, 1786, by The Chickasaw Nation (“Chickasaw Nation”), wherein the United States of America acknowledged that the Choctaw Nation and the Chickasaw Nation were “to be under-[its] protection,” 7 Stat. 21, Article 2; e.g,,
Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2017-06-27 · Published · cited 0×
2017 WI 67 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2016AP275 COMPLETE TITLE: The Honorable William M. Gabler, Sr., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Crime Victims Rights Board, Respondent-Appellant,
Mitchem v. Perrypublic domain
Missouri Court of Appeals · 1965-04-05 · Published · cited 1× · 390 S.W.2d 600; 1965 Mo. App. LEXIS 665
SPERRY, Commissioner. Plaintiff is a legally qualified and practicing physician and surgeon under the laws of Missouri, being licensed as a D.O. Defendants are members of and constitute the Board of Registration for the Healing Arts in Missouri, hereafter referred to as the Board. The Board has the power and duty to issue licenses to qualified applicants, authorizing them to practice their profession as Medical Doctors, or as
Knight v. Stroudpublic domain
Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1949-04-15 · Published · cited 9× · 53 S.E.2d 72; 214 S.C. 437; 1949 S.C. LEXIS 45
April 15, 1949. This is the second appeal in this case. The opinion in the first appeal is reported in 212 S.C. 39, 46 S.E.2d 169,170; and merely settled that the defense of the respondents here (defendants) was "a purely equitable defense in the nature of an equitable estoppel, and should be referred or tried by the court as an equitable issue." The complaint of the appellants, as
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975-02-10 · Published · cited 126× · 323 N.E.2d 319; 366 Mass. 790; 1975 Mass. LEXIS 1141
366 Mass. 790 (1975) 323 N.E.2d 319 COMMONWEALTH vs. LOUIS C. HALL. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk. October 7, 1974. February 10, 1975. Present: TAURO, C.J., REARDON, QUIRICO, HENNESSEY, & KAPLAN, JJ. Michael D. Cutler for the defendant. *791 Robert Snider,
Supreme Court of Delaware · 2003-09-15 · Published · cited 1× · 832 A.2d 705; 2003 WL 22177246
VEASEY, Chief Justice. In this appeal, we hold that plaintiffs who were allegedly injured by asbestos exposure have adduced sufficient evidence to permit a jury to determine whether the defendant, the distributor who sold the asbestos to the plaintiffs’ employer, owed a duty to warn the plaintiffs about asbestos hazards. We conclude that the seller cannot avail itself of the “mere supplier” defense set forth in the Restatement
Lightsey v. Stonepublic domain
Supreme Court of Alabama · 1951-05-10 · Published · cited 19× · 52 So. 2d 376; 255 Ala. 541; 1951 Ala. LEXIS 367
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 543 This proceeding was instituted in the circuit court of Mobile County, in equity, by Edward S. Stone and wife, Laura M. Stone, against Leon E. Lightsey to establish and define a disputed boundary line between adjoining city property. Incidental to this relief, the bill prayed for an injunction restraining Lig
District Court, W.D. Texas · 1999-07-01 · Published · cited 9× · 65 F. Supp. 2d 431; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16349; 1999 WL 528848
65 F.Supp.2d 431 (1999) Isabel G. ANDRADE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Phillip J. CHOJNACKI, et al., Defendants. Civil Nos. W-96-CA-139 to W-96-CA-147, W-96-CA-373. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Waco Division. July 1, 1999. *432 *433 *434 <
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · 2015-11-18 · Published · cited 0×
Filed: 11/17/2015 4:35:15 PM Eloy R. Garcia, District Clerk Starr County, Texas Ana Martinez
Supreme Court of Vermont · 1940-05-07 · Published · cited 34× · 13 A.2d 282; 111 Vt. 227; 1940 Vt. LEXIS 151
This is an appeal from the decision of commissioners upon the estate of William E. Delligan. The case has been here once before upon questions raised by demurrer and motion to dismiss and was remanded to the county court for further proceedings. 110 Vt. 294, 6 A.2d. 1. A jury trial was then had which resulted in a verdict for the claimants, Mary Ann Delligan, individually, and as administratrix of the estate of Barney Delligan, hereinafter called the plainti
Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933-06-22 · Published · cited 27× · 150 So. 693; 227 Ala. 459; 1933 Ala. LEXIS 312
On Rehearing. It is well understood that the general rule is that, to constitute a bailment, there must be an acceptance of possession of the property, which implies knowledge by the bailee that he takes and assumes possession, and his dominion must ordinarily be exclusive. But that principle is consistent with the further rule of law by which, when a certain relation is voluntarily assumed, acceptance of the possession of certain property may be
Tasby v. Wrightpublic domain
District Court, N.D. Texas · 1981-08-03 · Published · cited 22× · 520 F. Supp. 683; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13887
520 F.Supp. 683 (1981) Eddie Mitchell TASBY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Linus WRIGHT, General Superintendent, Dallas Independent School District, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 3-4211-H. United States District Court, N. D. Texas, Dallas Division. August 3, 1981. *684 *685 Edward B. Cloutman,