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 “BARCELONA v. BURKES”
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BARDY DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a ) Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiff/ ) Counterclaim Defendant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2021-0175-JRS ) HILL-ROM, INC., an Indiana corporati
Town of Brighton v. West Brighton Fire Dept., Inc.public domain
Town of Brighton v West Brighton Fire Dept., Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 05277) Town of Brighton v West Brighton Fire Dept., Inc. 2019 NY Slip Op 05277 Decided on June 28, 2019 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published
Fisher v. Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Co.public domain
*151 SUBSTITUTE OPINION, THE COURT’S PRIOR OPINION DATED April 28, 2017 IS HEREBY WITHDRAWN. EISMANN, Justice. This is an appeal out of Ada County from a judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs action seeking to recover under an insurance policy for the loss of her house caused when a r
Fisher v. Garrison Property & Casualty Inspublic domain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 44117-2016 SHAMMIE L. FISHER, ) ) Boise, April 2017 Term Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) 2017 Opinion No. 39 v. )
State v. J.S.public domain
[Cite as State v. J.S., 2016-Ohio-8267.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 15AP-959 (C.P.C. No. 14CR-5787) v. : (REGULAR
Meleeka Clary-Ghosh v. Michael Ghosh (mem. dec.)public domain
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Dec 05 2018, 6:12 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose CLERK of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Getty Images (Us) Inc. v. Advernet, Inc.public domain
797 F.Supp.2d 399 (2011) GETTY IMAGES (US) INC., Plaintiff, v. ADVERNET, INC., f/k/a VR Marketing, Inc., Defendant. No. 09 Civ. 1895 (KNF). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 29, 2011. Memorandum Denying Reconsideration November 22, 2011. *401 Roberto Clemente Carrillo, Mario Aieta, Michael Simeon
McMullen v. Tennispublic domain
562 F.3d 231 (2009) Kim McMULLEN, Appellant v. Franklin TENNIS; Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania; Robert B. Stewart, III. No. 06-5064. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued January 27, 2009. Filed: April 1, 2009. *233 Matthew J. Zeigler, Esq. (Argued), Williamsport, PA, for Appellant.
Commonwealth v. McMullenpublic domain
TAMILIA, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Appellant, Kim Lee McMullen, challenges the Order of February 4, 1997, whereby the trial court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss this action on grounds of double jeopardy. In previous litigation, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that the doctrine of corpus delicti barred the admission of appellant’s inculpatory statement because
Kim McMullen v. Franklin Tennispublic domain
Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-1-2009 Kim McMullen v. Franklin Tennis Precedential or
US Dominion, US v. Newsmax Media, Inc.public domain
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE US DOMINION, INC., DOMINION ) VOTING SYSTEMS, INC., and ) DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS ) CORPORATION, ) C.A. No.: N21C-08-063 EMD ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. )
Commonwealth v. McMullenpublic domain
745 A.2d 683 (2000) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Kim Lee McMULLEN, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Argued October 20, 1999. Filed February 14, 2000. *685 William G. Tressler, Bellefonte, for appellant. Robert B. Stewart, III, Dist. Atty., Huntingdon, for Com., appellee. Before HUDOCK, EAKIN
Enrique Bernat F., S.A. v. Guadalajara, Inc.public domain
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: Appellant Guadalajara, Inc. d/b/a Dulces Vero USA (“Dulces Vero”) appeals from the imposition of a preliminary injunction forbidding it to sell its soft-serve frozen yogurt cone-shaped lollipops under the mark “Chupa Gurts” in the United States. The district court determined that Dulces Vero’s mark infringed the mark “Chupa Chups,” held by appellees Enr
López v. Porrata Doriapublic domain
La Jueza Asociada Señora Fiol Matta emitió la opinión del Tribunal. Nos corresponde determinar si un establecimiento comercial puede ser objeto de una reclamación en daños y perjuicios bajo el Art. 1802 del Código Civil, 31 L.P.R.A. see. 5141, por suministrar bebidas alcohólicas a una persona que está visiblemente intoxicada y que, posteriormente, causa daños al conducir un automóvil bajo la influencia del alc
United States v. Shukri Bakerpublic domain
KING, Circuit Judge: In this consolidated case, we address the appeals of five individuals and one corporate defendant convicted of conspiracy and substantive offenses for providing material aid and support to a designated terrorist organization. The terrorist organization at issue is Hamas, which in 1995 was named a Specially Designated Terrorist by Presidential Executive Order
Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.public domain
Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge ROGERS. Opinion dissenting in part by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH. ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Pursuant to a contract with the Indonesian government, Exxon Mobil Corporation, a United States corporation, and several of its wholly owned subsidiaries (hereinafter “Exxon”) operated a large natural gas extraction and processing facility in the Aceh province of Ind
Diaz Aguasviva v. Iberia Lineas Aereas De Espanapublic domain
902 F.Supp. 314 (1995) Ana Magalis DIAZ AGUASVIVA, Plaintiff, v. IBERIA LINEAS AEREAS de ESPANA and Insurance Co. X, Y, Z, Defendants. Civ. No. 93-2795 (HL). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. September 27, 1995. *315 John E. Mudd, Ortiz Toro & Ortiz Brunet, Howard Charles, San Juan, PR, for plaintiff. Juan
Abuan v. Smedvig Tankships, Ltd.public domain
717 So.2d 1194 (1998) Nestor ABUAN, as guardian on Behalf of Carlos VALDEZ v. SMEDVIG TANKSHIPS, LTD., et al. No. 96-CA-1013. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. June 24, 1998. Rehearing Denied September 15, 1998. *1196 Richard J. Dodson, David C. Vidrine, Kenneth H. Hooks, III, Dodson & Vidrine, AP
Cintrón Adorno v. Gómezpublic domain
El Juez Asociado Señor Negrón García emitió la opinión del tribunal. Al resolver este recurso recordamos que “la muerte de un ser querido, más que de él es nuestra, puesto que nosotros la vivimos”.(1) (Énfasis suplido.) I Nayda Cintrón Adorno y sus tres (3) hijos menores de-mandaron al Dr. José A. Gómez et al.,
Kane v. Winnpublic domain
319 F.Supp.2d 162 (2004) Michael KANE, Plaintiff, v. David L. WINN, Warden, F.M.C. Devens, Defendant. No. CIV.A.03-40116-WGY. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. May 27, 2004. *163 *164 *165 *166 Mark J. Grad