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 “ZAMA AND ZAMA INC.”
Smith v. Zamapublic domain
Smith v Zama (2025 NY Slip Op 07357) Smith v Zama 2025 NY Slip Op 07357 Decided on December 31, 2025 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and sub
Sola Professional Group, L.L.C. v. Mallekpublic domain
[Cite as Sola Professional Group, L.L.C. v. Mallek, 2022-Ohio-3041.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA SOLA PROFESSIONAL GROUP, LLC, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 111181 v. : HALA MALEK,
Cerny v. Andrewspublic domain
[Cite as Cerny v. Andrews, 2025-Ohio-2864.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA FRED CERNY, ET AL., : Plaintiffs-Appellees, : No. 114529 v. : SCOTT ANDREWS, ET AL., :
Guzelgurgenli v. Prime Time Specials Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. Plaintiffs Cemil Gurkan Guzelgurgenli (“Guzelgurgenli”), Hasan Kasikci (“H. Kasikci”), and Bilal Habes Kasikci (“B. Kasikci”, collectively “the Plaintiffs”), filed a putative collective action suit against various defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”) and the New York State Labor Law (“N.Y. Labor La
Zele v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co.public domain
[Cite as Zele v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 2025-Ohio-1546.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA CHRISTINE ZELE, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 114137 v. :
Kingsbury v. Cornerstone Family Office, L.L.C.public domain
[Cite as Kingsbury v. Cornerstone Family Office, L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-18.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA DOROTHEA KINGSBURY, TRUSTEE, : ET AL., Plaintiffs, : No. 109886 v. : CORNERSTONE FAMILY OFFICE : L.L.C., ET AL.,
Lebrun v. Farnhampublic domain
Henry, Bruce R., J. Before the Court is the petition of Atty. Brian J. Lenfest (Lenfest) to determine and enforce a lien in his favor against the attorneys fees collected after a settlement of the underlying action. The underlying action has been settled and the attorneys fees called for by the terms of the contingent fee agreement between the plaintiff and the firm which represented her have been set aside and are now in an es
Lenfest v. Verizon Enterprise Solutions, LLCpublic domain
MEMORANDUM & ORDER GORTON, District Judge. Here we have a putative class action brought by Brian Lenfest (“Lenfest”), who claims that defendant Verizon Enterprise Solutions, LLC (“Verizon”) violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 93A, and was unjustly enriched by failing to disclose minimum monthly charges for long distance telephone service. Pending before the Court is defendant
Bromley v. Semepublic domain
[Cite as Bromley v. Seme, 2013-Ohio-4751.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO EDNA BROMLEY, : OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2012-G-3115 - vs - : BARBARA A. SEME, et al.,
Ginley v. Hamiltonpublic domain
[Cite as Ginley v. Hamilton, 2014-Ohio-2642.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100361 BRYAN GINLEY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs.
Prime Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Badah Ents.public domain
[Cite as Prime Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Badah Ents., 2014-Ohio-206.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99827 PRIME PROPERTIES LTD. PARTNERSHIP PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
Garrido v. Statepublic domain
CONNER, J. Jorge Carlos Garrido appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm and the resulting mandatory minimum sentence of three years in prison. Garrido raises four issues on appeal that the trial court: 1) abused its discretion in giving the standard jury instruction for justifiable use of non-deadly force in defense of person without modification, contrary to this court’s decision in Bassallo v. Stat
Mathews v. E. Pike Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.public domain
[Cite as Mathews v. E. Pike Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2013-Ohio-4437.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PIKE COUNTY GEORGE L. MATHEWS, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : : Case No. 12CA831
Link v. Kellypublic domain
[Cite as Link v. Kelly, 2025-Ohio-711.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY DAVE LINK, CASE NO. 8-24-16 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CLIFFORD E. KELLY, OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court
PNC Mtge. v. Guentherpublic domain
[Cite as PNC Mtge. v. Guenther, 2013-Ohio-3044.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY PNC MORTGAGE, a division of : PNC Bank National Association : Appellate Case No. 25385 : Plaintiff-Appellee : Trial Court Case No. 2010-CV-5706
Brian Jeffrey Turner v. Commonwealth of Virginiapublic domain
ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS, Judge. Brian Jeffrey Turner (“Turner”) appeals the rulings of the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria (the “circuit court”) 1) declining Turner’s motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant obtained as a result of a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) tracking device, 2) admitting photographs of mail addressed to Turner as evidence at
Zamani v. Carnespublic domain
*993 HOLLAND, District Judge. Appellants H. Gene Carnes, Phillip Carnes, Jennifer Carnes, Kathryn Schal-ler, and Kevin Schaller (“the Carneses”) appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to strike and/ or dismiss and- their motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL II PR ASSET PORTFOLIO APELACIÓN 2013-1 INTERNATIONAL, LLC procedente del Tribunal de Primera Apelado Instancia, Sala Superior de Utuado
Systems Exploration, Inc. v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION YOCK, Judge. This contract case comes before the Court challenging the denial by the Government contracting officer of the plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of dependent children’s school tuition under Contract N00604-81-C-0265 (’0265). The defendant has moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff has cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set out herein, the defendant’s motion for
American Motorists Insurance v. ARTRA Group, Inc.public domain
CHASANOW, Judge. This case arises out of a declaratory judgment action commenced by American Motorists Insurance Company (“American Motorists”) against ARTRA Group, Inc. (“ARTRA”) in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on April 29, 1992. The facts underlying the commencement of that declaratory judgment action are as follows. In 1980, Sherwin-Williams Company (“Sherwin-Williams”) purchased from ARTRA a p