⚖ 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.

4 opinions for “Batton v. The National Association of Realtors”

District Court, E.D. California · 1981-04-03 · Published · cited 1× · 511 F. Supp. 1244; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11421
AMENDED OPINION MILTON L. SCHWARTZ, District Judge. Plaintiffs herein seek declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Article I, § 7(a)1 of the California Constitution. Plaintiffs allege that this constitutional provision, which was enacted pursuant to a *1248vote of the state’s citizens, is racially discrimi
District Court, E.D. California · 1981-04-03 · Published · cited 20× · 511 F. Supp. 1244
511 F.Supp. 1244 (1981) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, a Corporation; Lukrieta Littlejohn, a Minor, by and through Carol Littlejohn, her Guardian Ad Litem; Angela Burford, a Minor, by and through Mattie Burford, her Guardian Ad Litem; Jack and Betty Lewis, individually and as parents and Guardians Ad Litem of Jack Lewis, Jr., and Felicia Lewis, Minors; Robert and Stella Parker, Individually and as parents and Guardians Ad Lit
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2013-02-26 · Published · cited 33× · 2013 Md. LEXIS 695; 433 Md. 426; 71 A.3d 105
HARRELL, J. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is a companion case1 brought by residents of Jacksonville, Maryland,2 against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Petition*436er)3 for an underground gasoline leak from an Exxon Mobil-owned gasoline service station, located at the corner of
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2012-02-09 · Published · cited 0× · 204 Md. App. 1; 40 A.3d 514; 42 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20049; 2012 WL 426748; 2012 Md. App. LEXIS 16
PER CURIAM. In accordance with Md.Code (1973, 2006 ReplVol.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § l-403(c), a majority of the incumbent judges of this Court ordered this appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County by appellant Exxon Mobil Corporation to be reheard in banc. The in banc panel unanimously concludes: that counsel for Exxon Mobil did not waive the appellant’s right to challenge