⚖ 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 “Wright v. Raceway Park, Inc.”

Supreme Court of the United States · 2010-06-28 · Published · cited 0× · 177 L. Ed. 2d 1096; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5374; 130 S. Ct. 3508; 561 U.S. 1028; 78 U.S.L.W. 3762
Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Supreme Court of Delaware · 2025-06-04 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GREGORY L. BARNES and § AMBER N. BARNES, § No. 476, 2024 § Plaintiffs Below, § Court Below: Superior Court Appellants, § of the State of Delaware § v. § C.A. No. S23C-04-007
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2011-09-06 · Published · cited 2× · 195 Ohio App. 3d 372
Piper, Judge. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Moler Raceway Park, L.L.C. (“Moler”), appeals the decision of the Brown County Court of Common Pleas regarding restrictions placed on the use of its property. We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings. {¶ 2} Moler owns 40 acres of land in Sterling Township on which it operates a quarter-mile dirt track motor raceway. There
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2008-11-19 · Published · cited 1× · 22 Misc. 3d 568
OPINION OF THE COURT Richard B. Meyer, J. Consolidated proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging a determination by the respondent Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) dated March 25, 2008 which, inter alla, directed petitioner Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF) to apply to the Agency for a permit for three new single-family dwellings and a four-lot subdivision, pay a $50,000 civil penalty, and not to occupy
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · 2023-03-09 · Published · cited 0×
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-21-00217-CV ________________ DIMPLES JONES AND DARREL L. JONES SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DAYLEN JONES, Appellants V. PAUL E. WRIGHT JR. AND PATRICIA D.
Missouri Court of Appeals · 1996-02-05 · Published · cited 15× · 913 S.W.2d 28
913 S.W.2d 28 (1995) SHADY VALLEY PARK & POOL, INC., Plaintiff/Respondent-Cross/Appellant, v. FRED WEBER, INC., Defendant/Appellant-Cross/Respondent. Nos. 66526, 66531. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two. August 15, 1995. Motions for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied September 25, 1995. Case Transferred October 24, 199
New York Supreme Court · 1978-02-02 · Published · cited 17× · 96 Misc. 2d 350; 409 N.Y.S.2d 40; 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2606
OPINION OF THE COURT John J. Conway, J. This is an action brought by the State of New York, for *352itself and as parens patriae on behalf of the citizens of New York, seeking to enjoin permanently the use of certain property in the Village of Waterloo for stock cars. The named defendants are the Seneca County Agricultural Society, owner of th
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2017-10-24 · Published · cited 45× · 2017 OK 82; 408 P.3d 183; 2017 WL 4782999; 2017 Okla. LEXIS 83
OSCN Found Document:BOYLE v. ASAP ENERGY, INC. OSCN navigation Home Courts Court Dockets
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2017-10-24 · Published · cited 13× · 2017 OK 82
OSCN Found Document:BOYLE v. ASAP ENERGY, INC. OSCN navigation Home Courts Court Dockets
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2018-10-12 · Published · cited 41× · 343 F. Supp. 3d 459
(Confidentiality Agmt. Background.) The Confidentiality Agreement defined "Proprietary Information" as: (a) all technology, know how, plans, designs, specifications, formulas, technical information, drawings, and other information related to the Company's products, production equipment, and manufacturing processes, (b) audited and internally prepared financial statements and related supplementary
District Court, D. New Mexico · 2016-03-23 · Published · cited 1× · 172 F. Supp. 3d 1204; 2016 WL 1162490; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39158
ORDER William P. Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge Arnoldo Carrillo is licensed by the New Mexico. Racing Commission to train and race horses, and did so through his company, Santa Fe Horse Racing by Carrillo’s, LLC (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs raced their *1208horses at New Mexico’s five licensed horse racing tracks, and were successful doin
District Court, S.D. Texas · 2017-08-02 · Published · cited 0× · 275 F. Supp. 3d 808
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER • Kenneth M. Hoyt, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is USOR’s amended motion for summary judgment and the defendant, the City of Pasadena’s, cross-motion for summary judgment1. The Court notes that it has issued an omnibus memorandum opinion identifying and discussing undisputed facts and as well, the
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2007-02-08 · Published · cited 4× · 862 N.E.2d 1171; 308 Ill. Dec. 968; 371 Ill. App. 3d 332
862 N.E.2d 1171 (2007) 308 Ill.Dec. 968 Pierre PETRICH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MCY MUSIC WORLD, INC., a Delaware Corporation; SFX Entertainment Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; SFX Marketing, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; SFX Touring, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Route 66 Raceway, LLC; Skeez, LLC, f/s/o *NSYNC; and J.C. Chasez, Lance Bass, Chris Kirkpatrick
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2004-05-27 · Published · cited 1× · 151 S.W.3d 920; 2004 Tenn. App. LEXIS 340
151 S.W.3d 920 (2004) Robert L. "Larry" CARRIER v. SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS, INC., et al. Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section, at Knoxville. October 16, 2003 Session. May 27, 2004. Permission to Appeal Denied December 6, 2004. *922 Cecil W. Laws, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert L. "Larry" C
District Court, E.D. New York · 2003-07-21 · Published · cited 20× · 271 F. Supp. 2d 435; 2003 WL 21689641
271 F.Supp.2d 435 (2003) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, Plaintiff, v. ACUSPORT, INC., et al., Defendants. Nos. 99 CV 3999(JBW), 99 CV 7037(JBW). United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 21, 2003. *436 *437 *438
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2001-10-22 · Published · cited 8× · 757 N.E.2d 186; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 1815; 2001 WL 1260441
FRIEDLANDER, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the dismissal of the claim for conversion. I disagree, however, with the majority's conclusion that the trial court erred in dismissing Dominiack's claim for unjust enrichment. In order to prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must establish that the plaintiff has co
District Court, District of Columbia · 2006-08-17 · Published · cited 66× · 449 F. Supp. 2d 1; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57759; 2006 WL 2380622
449 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 99-2496(GK). United States Distri
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007-10-02 · Published · cited 28× · 505 F.3d 417; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 23048; 182 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2907; 2007 WL 2827583
505 F.3d 417 (2007) UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAINT GOBAIN CERAMICS & PLASTICS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 05-6851. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: June 6, 2007. Decided and Filed: October 2, 2007. *418 ARGUED: David R. Jury, United Steelwor
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2001-04-09 · Published · cited 13× · 756 N.E.2d 127; 142 Ohio App. 3d 443
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 445 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 446 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE N