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.
14 opinions for “East Coast Resources, LLC v. Town of Hempstead, New York”
East Coast Resources, LLC v. Town of Hempsteadpublic domain
707 F.Supp.2d 401 (2010) EAST COAST RESOURCES, LLC, Plaintiff(s), v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, Defendant(s). No. CV 07-2954(ETB). United States District Court, E.D. New York. April 21, 2010. Opinion Denying Reconsideration July 19, 2010. *403 Litchfield Cavo LLP by Edward Fogerty, Jr., Esq., Christopher McLaughlin, Esq.
Town of Hempstead v. EAST COAST RESOURCE GROUP, LLCpublic domain
14 N.Y.3d 921 (2010) TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, Respondent, v. EAST COAST RESOURCE GROUP, LLC, Appellant. 2010-459. Court of Appeals of New York. Submitted April 19, 2010. Decided June 10, 2010. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Const
Town of Hempstead v. East Coast Resource Group, LLCpublic domain
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the Town of Hempstead appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spinola, J.), dated April 1, 2008, which, upon an order of the same court (McCormack, J.), dated July 10, 2007, inter alia, denying its motion for summary judgment on its cause of action (formerly a cross claim) against the defendant, East Coast Resource Group, LLC, to recover damages for breach of an
Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Plaza W., LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 03906 June 18, 2026 Court of Appeals Halligan, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Incorporated Village of Freeport, Respondent, v Freeport Plaza West, LLC, Appell
ACCEPTED 03-14-00706-CV 5038192 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
ACCEPTED 03-14-00706-CV 4055487 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
701 F.Supp.2d 568 (2010) MOSDOS CHOFETZ CHAIM, INC., Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim, Inc., Rabbi James Bernstein, Moshe Ambers, Rabbi Mayer Zaks, and Rabbi Aryeh Zaks, Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF WESLEY HILLS, The Mayor and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Wesley Hills, Robert H. Frankel, in his individual and official capacity, Edward B. McPherson, in his individual and official capacity, David A. Goldsmith, in his individual and official capacity,
Sandoval v. Trump Plaza Owners, Inc.public domain
Sandoval v Trump Plaza Owners, Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 05803) Sandoval v Trump Plaza Owners, Inc. 2019 NY Slip Op 05803 Decided on July 24, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Report
Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (David I. Schmidt), dated October 29, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of the defendant El Equity Corporation for summary judgment on its cross claims and awarding it punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Sandsport Data Services, Inc., which was for summary j
Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company v. Infrassure, Ltdpublic domain
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2021 WY 65 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2021 May 10, 2021 SINCLAIR WYOMING REFINING COMPANY, Appellant (Plaintiff), S-20-0114 v. INFRASSURE, LTD, Appellee (Defendant). W.R.A.P. 11 Certification Uni
Federal Insurance Co. v. Speedboat Racing Ltd.public domain
OMNIBUS RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS HAIGHT, Senior District Judge “If the highest aim of a captain were to preserve his ship, he would keep it in port forever.” This aphorism is attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas,1 whose resume did not include ocean yacht racing. The ship involved in this action, an ocean racing yacht, did not remain in port. Rather, in August
Love Terminal Partners, L.P. v. United Statespublic domain
Fifth Amendment Taking; Lucas Categorical Taking; Regulatory Taking; Penn Central Factors; Just Compensation; Highest and Best Use of Property; Posttrial Award OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Plaintiffs Love Terminal Partners, L.P. (“Love Terminal Partners”) and Virginia Aerosp
OPINION HORN, Judge. FINDINGS OF FACT This opinion relates to four consolidated cases filed by the same plaintiff, Gulf Group General Enterprises Co. W.L.L. (Gulf Group), in the United States Court of Federal Claims. 1 The eases arise from four
ACCEPTED 03-14-00667-CV 3957344 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS