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 “Deborah L. Martin”
Brian S. Pope v. Deborah Baird Martin a/k/a Deborah L. Martin a/k/a Deborah Martin Pope a/k/a Deborah L. Popepublic domain
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2021-CA-00367-COA BRIAN S. POPE APPELLANT v. DEBORAH BAIRD MARTIN A/K/A DEBORAH APPELLEE L. MARTIN A/K/A DEBORAH MARTIN POPE A/K/A DEBORAH L. POPE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/23/2020 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DEWEY KEY ARTHUR COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
Martin v. Adoption of L.M.D.public domain
GERSTEN, J. Joseph and Arlene Martin (“the adoptive parents”) seek certiorari or prohibition based on the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss Karen DeAngelis’ (“the biological mother”) motion to vacate an adoption. We grant the petition. The adoptive parents, the maternal grandparents of the child, L.D.M., sought to adopt L.D.M. After the biological *759
Deborah Parker v. Dan Martinpublic domain
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2084 Doc: 38 Filed: 07/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 12 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-2084 In re: DEBORAH FAYE PARKER, Debtor. ------------------------------ DAN G. MARTIN,
Martin v. Kohlspublic domain
Cite as 2014 Ark. 427 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-14-462 MARK MARTIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL Opinion Delivered October 15, 2014 CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ARKANSAS APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT COMMISSIONERS; RHONDA COLE;
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District RAY CHARLES BATE AND ) DEBORAH SUE BATE, ) ) WD76086 Appellants, ) ) OP
Martin L. Schneider, M.D., P.A. v. Hawspublic domain
118 S.W.3d 886 (2003) Martin L. SCHNEIDER, M.D., P.A. and Diana K. Wise, Appellants, v. Eloise HAWS, Appellee. No. 07-02-0082-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo. October 14, 2003. *888 Todd O. Lafferty, Deborah Reeves, Gibson Ochsner & Adkins, L.L.P., William Tod Mayfield, Mayfield Crutcher & Sharpee, Amarillo, for A
Williams v. Harold L. Martin Distributing Co.public domain
On Remand from the Supreme Court The prior judgment of this court has been reversed, to the extent it reversed the summary judgment, and the case remanded. See Ex parte HaroldL. Martin Distrib. Co., [Ms. 1981921, March 17, 2000] 769 So.2d 313 (Ala. 2000). In compliance with the Supreme Court's opinion, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Robertson, P.J., and Monroe, Crawley, and Thompson, JJ., conc
Ex Parte Harold L. Martin Distributing Co.public domain
Harold L. Martin Distributing Company, Inc., d/b/a Martin Food Mart No. 5 ("Martin"), sought certiorari review of a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, which reversed a summary judgment entered in its favor against Terry Joanne Williams. We granted review; we now reverse and remand. The operative facts out of which this action arose are set forth in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals: "[Martin] owns several gas station/convenience stores in the Ha
Williams v. Harold L. Martin Distributing Co.public domain
Terry Joanne Williams sued Harold L. Martin Distributing Company, Inc., d/b/a Martin Food Mart No. 5 ("Martin Distributing"), and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. ("Chevron"). Williams alleged that Martin Distributing had negligently constructed and negligently maintained a wheelchair ramp and adjacent curb and sidewalk and that its negligence had caused her to fall and be injured. Williams's complaint further asserted that Chevron was vicariously liable for Martin Distributing's alleged negligen
16 Front St., L.L.C. v. Miss. Silicon, L.L.C.public domain
PRISCILLA OWEN, Circuit Judge: *551 16 Front Street, LLC and Richard Cotton (collectively, Front Street) filed a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7604
Martin v. Mileypublic domain
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry W. Martin, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s previous order denying relief on Martin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
Martin v. Byarspublic domain
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry W. Martin, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Martin’s claims against all but one Defendant without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
Martin v. Medtronic, Inc.public domain
ORDER H. RUSSEL HOLLAND, District Judge. Motion to Dismiss Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was requested but is not deemed necessary. Background Plaintiffs are Debra and Patrick Martin. Defendants s
Martin v. U.S. Department of Education (In re Young)public domain
ORDER AND OPINION Ben Barry, United States Bankruptcy Judge The debtors, Gretchen and Martin Young, filed their chapter 7 case on April 28, 2015. They received a discharge on August 4, 2015. On September 4, 2015, the debtors filed this adversary proceeding against the United States Department of Education [DOE], seeking a determination that their student loans are discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)
Martin v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLCpublic domain
ORDER James E. Gates, United States Magistrate Judge This consolidated case comes before the court on two discovery motions: (1) a motion to compel (D.E. 71) responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents by plaintiff John T. Martin (“plaintiff’) and (2) a motion for a protective order (D.E. 73) by defendant Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC (“defendant”). The motions have been fully
Cunningham v. Hughes & Luce, L.L.P.public domain
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 64 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 65 OPINION This is an appeal from a "trial within a trial." Deborah Cunningham fil
In re Progressive Macedonia Real Estate, L.L.C.public domain
BRUNNER, J. {¶ 1} Appellants, Northfield Village Retirement Community, Ltd. and Northfield Village Realty I, Ltd. (collectively "Northfield Village"), pursuant to R.C. 3702.60, appeal from the January 6, 2016 adjudication order of the director of the Ohio Department of Health ("director" or "ODH" as appropriate) which granted appellee Progressive Macedonia Real Estate, LLC's ("Progres
Bricker v. Martin (In Re Martin)public domain
313 B.R. 679 (2004) In re Thomas L. MARTIN and Deborah J. Scalera-Martin, Debtors. Kenneth G. Bricker; Ellen Bricker; Pamela J. Meier; Joseph J. Meier; Adeline J. Huffman; Richard F. Monning; and Linda B. Monning, Plaintiffs, v. Thomas L. Martin, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 02-29981-MBM. Adversary No. 02-2667-MBM. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. September 2
State v. Martinpublic domain
179 P.3d 457 (2008) STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Paul B. MARTIN, Appellant. No. 96,126. Supreme Court of Kansas. March 28, 2008. *458 Juanita M. Carlson, of Carlson Law Office, P.A., of Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant. Brenda J. Clary, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Debora
ORDER AND REASONS MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN, District Judge. Before the Court is the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. Background The malicious prosecution lawsuit before this Court arises from highly public earlier litigation in which Jefferson Parish sued Waste Management in