⚖ 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.

20 opinions for “Dreisbach v. Robinson”

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011-02-22 · Published · cited 3× · 13 A.3d 925; 608 Pa. 584; 2011 Pa. LEXIS 383
OPINION Justice SAYLOR. In this direct appeal, we address whether the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) may use innovative “best value” and “short listing” methods to solicit and select among bids for highway construction projects. I. In 2008, PennDOT decided to rebuild two bridges, one eastbound and one westbound, carrying Interstate 90
Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2022-05-10 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD F. BURKHART, ) WILLIAM E. KELLY, RICHARD S. ) LAVERY, THOMAS R. PRATT, and ) GERALD GREEN, individually and on ) behalf of all other persons similarly ) situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016-08-09 · Published · cited 8× · 145 A.3d 208; 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 350; 2016 WL 4192008
OPINION BY Judge ANNE E. COVEY. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driving Licensing (DOT) appeals from the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court's (trial court) May 28, 2015 order sustaining the appeal of Christopher Marnik, Jr. (Marnik) from the 18-month suspension of his operating privileges imposed pursuant to Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004-08-23 · Published · cited 0× · 381 F.3d 131; 2004 WL 1874622
Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-23-2004 CTF Hotel Holdings v. Marriott Intl Inc Preced
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2024-12-23 · Published · cited 93× · 124 F.4th 218
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 21-2835 ______________ BRYAN DAVID RANGE, Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; REGINA LOMBARDO, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives __________
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004-08-23 · Published · cited 16× · 381 F.3d 131
381 F.3d 131 CTF HOTEL HOLDINGS, INC.,v.MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Renaissance Hotel Operating Company; Avendra L.L.C. Marriott International, Inc., Renaissance Hotel Operating Company, AppellantsCTF Hotel Holdings, Inc., Cross-Appellant. No. 02-2732. No. 02-2898. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued November 3, 2003.
Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2003-08-04 · Published · cited 77× · 829 A.2d 143; 2003 Del. Ch. LEXIS 81
829 A.2d 143 (2003) ANGLO AMERICAN SECURITY FUND, L.P., Diversified Long Term Growth Fund, L.P., Sterling Grace Capital Management, L.P., Drake Associates, L.P., the Lorraine G. Grace Trust 1487 and Oliver R. Grace Junior Trust 90 II, Plaintiffs, v. S.R. GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL FUND, L.P., Sloane Robinson Investment (Cayman), Ltd. and Ernst & Young LLP, Defendants. C.A. No. 20066-NC. Court of Chancery
Rountree v. Johannspublic domain
District Court, District of Columbia · 2005-08-11 · Published · cited 9× · 382 F. Supp. 2d 19; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16400; 96 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 713; 2005 WL 1926469
382 F.Supp.2d 19 (2005) Reginald J. ROUNTREE, Plaintiff, v. Mike JOHANNS, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Defendant. No. CIV.A.04-806 ESH. United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 11, 2005. *20 Richard L. Swick, Swick & Shapiro, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Heather D. Graham-Oliver, U.S.
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · 2015-03-09 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 13-14-00462-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS FILED
District Court, District of Columbia · 2021-07-02 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PRESS COALITION’S MOTION Miscellaneous Action No. 21-87 (BAH) FOR ACCESS TO VIDEO EXHIBITS AND TO SET ASIDE STANDING ORDER NO. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell 21-28 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is a petition submitted on behalf of fifteen media organizations (“the P
Van Orden v. Perrypublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2005-06-27 · Published · cited 343× · 162 L. Ed. 2d 607; 125 S. Ct. 2854; 545 U.S. 677; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5215; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 494
545 U.S. 677 (2005) VAN ORDEN v. PERRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS AND CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, ET AL. No. 03-1500. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 2, 2005. Decided June 27, 2005. *679 Erwin Chemerinsky argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were
District Court, D. Delaware · 2012-05-25 · Published · cited 6× · 869 F. Supp. 2d 519; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73115; 2012 WL 2428433
MEMORANDUM ORDER LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge. WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge issued a Report and Recommendation (D.I. 84; D.I. 105) (“Report”), dated June 16, 2011, recommending that the Court deny the motion to dismiss (D.I. 63) filed by Defendants Richard J. Heckmann, James Danforth Quayle, Alfred E. Osborne, Jr., Lou L. Holtz, and Donald G. Ezzell (collectively, “Individual D
Steininger v. Spaidpublic domain
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930-04-15 · Published · cited 2× · 150 A. 620; 300 Pa. 428; 1930 Pa. LEXIS 414
The subject of this action of ejectment is the residence of the plaintiff, John M. Steininger, at Middleburg, Snyder County. The defendant, George Spaid, was a brother of Mrs. Steininger and with his wife and two children became members of the Steininger home in 1922. The plaintiff was then about sixty-five years of age and in poor health, having suffered a paralytic stroke and was also gradually losing his eyesight, which later entirely failed. The main object of the two families occupying t
Wiegardt v. Beckenpublic domain
Washington Supreme Court · 1941-05-05 · Published · cited 11× · 113 P.2d 60; 8 Wash. 2d 568
1 Reported in 113 P.2d 60. This action was brought for an accounting. In the amended complaint, which will be referred to as the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were indebted to them in the "sum of ten thousand dollars or more." The defendants denied that they were indebted to the plaintiffs. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgm
Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1939-07-12 · Published · cited 12× · 7 A.2d 853; 125 Conn. 651; 1939 Conn. LEXIS 213
This was an accounting case. The plaintiff assigns as error an allowance to the defendant for the conversion of certain trade fixtures. The defendant claims that an allowance to the plaintiff for salary as president of the defendant was, under the circumstances, erroneous, as was the exclusion of an offer of evidence. No fact found by the committee is disputed. In order to understand the purport of the assignments of error, the report must be considered in some detail. The Callahan Oil
Supreme Court of Kansas · 1940-01-27 · Published · cited 27× · 151 Kan. 307; 98 P.2d 200; 155 A.L.R. 688; 1940 Kan. LEXIS 110
The opinion of the court was delivered by Allen, J.: This action was for a declaratory judgment to construe a will and determine the rights of the legatees and devisees thereunder. It is contended the will is void for the reasons (1) the limitations therein violate the rule against perpetuities, and (2) that it creates an indestructible trust. The appeal is from that judgment. The will of Fred
Wilson v. Martinezpublic domain
Wyoming Supreme Court · 1956-09-24 · Published · cited 10× · 301 P.2d 785; 76 Wyo. 196; 1956 Wyo. LEXIS 39
*204OPINION HARNSBERGER, Justice. Harry Phelan, father of the plaintiff, died on April 15, 1917, and his widow, Catherine, the plaintiff’s mother, was appointed as administratrix of his estate. On May 18, 1920, the court entered its “Order of Final Settlement and Distribution”, wherein the accounts of the administratrix were finally approved and settl
Court of Appeals of Texas · 1895-03-20 · Published · cited 9× · 30 S.W. 678; 9 Tex. Civ. App. 540; 1895 Tex. App. LEXIS 396
The verdict of the jury is for a less sum than plaintiff was entitled to, and this error will require a reversal of the judgment and the remanding of the cause for another trial. We will not pass upon the several assignments of error, as such, in the opinion; but will indicate our views upon the points in the case sufficient for the purpose of another trial. The different phases of the defense set up to the 10 per cent attorney's fees constitute no legal bar to a recovery upon that por
United States Circuit Court · 1886-06-04 · Published · cited 0× · 27 F. 800; 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2171
Dundy, J. When a claim against a county has been audited, and warrants have been drawn on the treasury therefor, and such war*801rants have been accepted by the creditor, he must present them to the treasury for payment before he can properly sue the county thereon. When presented to the treasurer for payment, and payment is refused, the right to sue becomes complete and
Estate of Williamspublic domain
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco · 1895-09-10 · Published · cited 0× · 5 Coffey 1
COFFEY, J. On the eighteenth day of 'January, 1895, Charles Williams, a resident of the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, died, leaving estate. On the nineteenth day of January, 1895, an instrument purporting to be the last will of said Charles Williams and to *2have been executed and attested on January 21, 1892, was filed in this cour