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 “Estate of Vance E. Perry, Sr. v. United States”
Charles Andrews, Sr. v. City of Mentor, Ohiopublic domain
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0193p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ CHARLES M. ANDREWS, SR., Trustee of the Gloria M. │ Andrews Trust Da
City of Dallas, Texas v. Frank Ojeda, Sr.public domain
Roden v. Kendrick IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-94-156-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E, BOASBERG, United States District Judge Since last summer, the question of whether Dakota Access should route its oil pipeline near the reservations of American Indian tribes has engendered substantial debate both on the ground in North and South Dakota and here in Washington. This Court, meanwhile, has focused on the specific leg
ACCEPTED 03-15-00293-CV 8312780 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
ACCEPTED 03-15-00409-CV 8019009 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/30/2015 4:14:06 PM
ACCEPTED 13-14-00667-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 4/17/20
ACCEPTED 03-14-00197-CV 4929353 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEX
VANCE, Circuit Judge: In this case we are asked to decide whether the district court properly abstained from hearing a case brought before it under section 306 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, Pub.L. No. 94-210, 90 Stat. 31, 54 (1976) (codified with some differences in language at 49 U.S.C. § 11503) (the 4R Act or the Act).
United States v. Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helperspublic domain
581 F.Supp. 279 (1984) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 560, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 82-689. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. February 8, 1984. As Amended March 8, 1984. *280
United States v. Dallas County Commissionpublic domain
548 F.Supp. 794 (1982) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 78-578-H. United States District Court, S. D. Alabama, S. D. September 3, 1982. *795 W. A. Kimbrough, Jr., U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., J. Gerald Hebert and Ellen M. Weber, Voting Section, Civ. Rights Div., Dept.
ACCEPTED 07-14-00405-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 2/18/2015 4:43:44 PM
In re City of Detroitpublic domain
Supplemental Opinion Regarding Plan Conñrmation, Approving Settlements, and Approving Exit Financing STEVEN W. RHODES, Bankruptcy Judge. Table of Contents I. Introduction.159 II. The Plan CONFIRMATION Prooess. i — 1 ZD i — I A. The City’s Plans of Adjustment. i — 1 <
ACCEPTED 01-15-00126-CV
FILED 15-0547 7/24/2015 5:49:28 PM tex-6223072 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK
Opinion issued May 27, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00336-CV ——————————— DEZZIE BRUMFIELD, JOE ADAMO, JULIA ADAMS, NANCY ALLEN, ANDREW ANDERSON, BEVERLY ANDERSON, ONYEMA ANOZIE, WHITLEY ARRINGTON, SHARON BACON, KOLAWOLE BAKARE, LONNIE C
ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/23/2
ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 4/2/2015 10
111 S.E.2d 457 (1959) 251 N.C. 218 HARRIET COTTON MILLS v. LOCAL NO. 578, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA et al. No. 385. Supreme Court of North Carolina. November 25, 1959. *460 W. M. Nicholson, James B. Ledford, Charlotte, James J. Randleman, Elkin, and L. Glen Ledford, Charlotte, for appellants.
Reedy v. Werholtzpublic domain
660 F.3d 1270 (2011) Michael E. REEDY; Todd Deal; Grant Nixon; Gerry A. Burden; Eric Hoffman; Timothy Lynn Collins; Larry B. Coleman; Mark E. Carroll; Ray A. *1271 Harris; Michael James Perry; Sherwin Taylor; Kristopher T. Valadez; Lawrence Stafford; Kenneth D. McNelly; Derek Bedford; Brian Manis; Brian McGoldrick; Joseph Richard Rivera, Sr.; Zachary Steward; Craig Pittman; Mark Dean McClough; William Shaffer; John Br
Dickson v. Ruchopublic domain
EDMUNDS, Justice. Following the 2010 Decennial Census, the General Assembly of North Carolina enacted redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives, and for the North Carolina dis*546tricts for the United States House of Representatives. Plaintiffs challenge the legality of these plans, arguing that they violate the constitutions of th