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.
7 opinions for “Boutin v. Exxon Mobil Corporation”
Boutin v. Exxon Mobil Corp.public domain
730 F.Supp.2d 660 (2010) Kimberly BOUTIN, Plaintiff, v. EXXON MOBIL CORP., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. H-09-0322. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. July 30, 2010. *663 Melissa Moore, Moore & Associates, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff. Ethel J. Johnson, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Housto
Fred S. Teeboom v. City of Nashua Daniel Moriarty v.public domain
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by e-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet
Porfiria Yocupicio v. Pae Group, LLCpublic domain
OPINION FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge: Porfiria Yocupicio appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to remand this matter to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (“Superior Court”) after PAE Group, LLC, and Arch Resources Group, LLC (collectively, “Arch”) removed 1
Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.public domain
ROBERT G. JAMES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 22] filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Plaintiff Jerry L. Johnson opposes the motion. [Doc. No. 27]. For reasons assigned below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant employed Plaintiff, an Army veteran who served in the
Smith v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.public domain
ORDER KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Judge. Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 61). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Rec. Doc. 65), and Defendant filed a reply (Rec. Doc. 75). For- the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion (Rec. Doc. 61) is hereby GRANTED. I. Background
Illaraza v. Hovensa LLCpublic domain
MEMORANDUM BARTLE, District Judge. In these consolidated civil actions, plaintiffs Jose Illaraza (“Jose”) and Luis Illara-za (“Luis”),1 who are brothers, bring claims against defendant HOVENSA, LLC (“HOVENSA”) for wrongful discharge, slander and defamation per se, tortious interference with contractual relationship, abuse of process, malicious prosecution; and
Electric MacHinery Enterprises, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (In Re Electric MacHinery Enterprises, Inc.)public domain
416 B.R. 801 (2009) In re ELECTRIC MACHINERY ENTERPRISES, INC., Debtor. Electric Machinery Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., The Clark Construction Group, Inc., and Construct Two Construction Managers, Inc., individually and as joint venturers trading as Hunt/Clark/Construct Two, a Joint Venture, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 8:03-bk-11047-MGW. Adversary No. 8:03-ap-00811-MGW.