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 “Eula Tyler”
NO. 12-18-00198-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS CHERIE FRANKLIN, INDIVIDUALLY § APPEAL FROM THE AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF EULA MAE FRANKLIN, APPELLANT V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 LONGVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, L.P.,
Fleming (Tyler) v. Statepublic domain
Supnaeme Court OF NEVADA (O) 197A <Q IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA TYLER FLEMING, No. 85040 Appellant, o vs, F THE STATE OF NEVADA, b. F [ LL. E p Respondent. AUG 08 2022 Eula TH A. BROWN CLERK OF RUPREME COURT ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This appeal was initiated by the filing of a pro se notice of appeal. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mary Kay Holthus, Judge. The notice of appeal fails to designate the specific order or judgment being challe
Agee v. WAYNE FARMS LLCpublic domain
626 F.Supp.2d 643 (2009) April AGEE, et al., Plaintiffs v. WAYNE FARMS LLC, Defendant. Eula M. Keyes, et al., Plaintiffs v. Wayne Farms LLC, Defendant. Civil Action Nos. 2:07cv1010-KS-MTP, 2:07md1872-KS-MTP. 2:07cv1011-KS-MTP. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. January 13, 2009. Seth M. Hunter, Seth M. Hunter, Attorney
Agee v. WAYNE FARMS LLCpublic domain
675 F.Supp.2d 684 (2009) April AGEE, et al., Plaintiffs v. WAYNE FARMS LLC, Defendant. Eula M. Keys, et al., Plaintiffs v. Wayne Farms LLC, Defendant. Civil Action Nos. 2:07cv1010-KS-MTP, 2:07cv1011-KS-MTP. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. December 16, 2009. *685 Seth M. Hunter, Se
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 12, 2014 NO. 03-13-00387-CV Bridgeport Independent School District, Abilene Independent School District, Denton Independent School District, Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District, Copperas Cove Independent School District, Stephenville Independent School District, Grand Saline Independent School District, Groesbeck Independent Schoo
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 23, 2014 NO. 03-13-00387-CV Bridgeport Independent School District, Abilene Independent School District, Denton Independent School District, Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District, Copperas Cove Independent School District, Stephenville Independent School District, Grand Saline Independent School District, Groesbeck Independent School
Kennard v. McCraypublic domain
648 S.W.2d 743 (1983) Eula Fay Pope KENNARD, Appellant, v. Lula Velma Kennard McCRAY, et al., Appellees. No. 12-81-0070-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler. February 24, 1983. Rehearing Denied April 14, 1983. *744 Robert B. Todd, Gregory A. Ostendorf, Houston, for appellant. Gordon L. Ginn, Eugene J. Pitm
Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LPpublic domain
PER CURIAM: Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. (“YPPI”) appeals the District Court’s award of $69,354.76 in attorney’s fees and $20,211.37 in nontaxable costs against Ziplocal, LP (“Ziplocal”). These amounts represent approximately 4.9% of the fees and 6.8% of the nontaxable costs YPPI requested, and YPPI asserts that such a dramatic reduc
ORDER SARA DARROW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Fidlar Technologies (“Fidlar”) sued LPS Real Estate Data Solutions, Inc. (“LPS”) under the civil-suit provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), and under the civil-suit provision the Illinois Computer Crime Prevention Law (“CCPL”), 720 ILCS 5/17-51 (2011). Fidlar also alleged a common law trespass to chattels claim.
Lions Eye Bank of Texas v. Perrypublic domain
OPINION ANDERSON, Justice. Appellant, Lions Eye Bank of Texas (the “Eye Bank”), appeals from the judgment entered in favor of appellees, Levi V. Perry, Sr., Eula Perry, Christopher Perry, and Patricia Perry (the “Perrys”), on their claim that the Eye Bank was negligent in performing a whole eye enucleation on the deceased, Levi V. Perry, Jr. (“Levi”). We conclude the Perrys cannot recover mental anguish d
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN ON MOTION FOR REHEARING NO. 03-13-00387-CV Bridgeport Independent School District, Abilene Independent School District, Denton Independent School District, Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District, Copperas Cove Independent School District, Stephenville Independent School District, Grand Saline Independent School District, Groesbeck Independent School D
236 S.W.3d 778 (2007) Eula YANCY, as Guardian of the Person and the Estate of Carletha Yates, an Incapacitated Adult, Petitioner, v. UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Valley View Surgical Center, Inc., and Judith Smith, R.N., Respondents. No. 05-0925. Supreme Court of Texas. Argued February 14, 2007. Decided October 19, 2007. Bryce J. De
*187OPINION Opinion By Justice MORRIS. In this medical malpractice case, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of United Surgical Partners International, Inc., Valley View Surgical Center, Inc., and Judith Smith, R.N. on the ground that the claims against them had been filed outside the limitations period. Eula Yan-cy, as
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00387-CV Bridgeport Independent School District, Abilene Independent School District, Denton Independent School District, Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District, Copperas Cove Independent School District, Stephenville Independent School District, Grand Saline Independent School District, Groesbeck Independent School District, Hallsville Independent School District, Rule
Yancy v. UNITED SURG. PART. INTERN., INC.public domain
170 S.W.3d 185 (2005) Eula YANCY, As the Guardian of the Person and The Estate of Carletha Yates, An Incapacitated Adult, Appellant v. UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Valley View Surgical Center, Inc., and Judith Smith, R.N., Appellees. No. 05-04-00791-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. July 12, 2005. Rehearing Overruled September 13, 2005.
Haskins v. First City National Bank of Lufkinpublic domain
Appeal from the granting of a motion for summary judgment filed by the bank. The bank's motion challenged the wording in a 1976 deed from Appellant and her spouse to her son, Joe Wade Haskins, asserting that the language constituted an unreasonable restraint on alienation and was void as a matter of law. The bank argued that it was a direct restraint. There is only one appellant and one appellee in this appeal. The appeal was limited in scope by Appellant. The limitation of appeal fil
Glasscock v. Permian Oil Co.public domain
The suit is a vacancy (a boundary) suit. J. A. Glasscock was the original plaintiff, and some sixty-seven individuals and concerns were named as defendants. The State, under the statute, intervened. So far as the suit on this appeal is concerned, it is prosecuted by Glasscock in pursuance of his valuable, preference, property right to acquire the oil and gas lease on a strip of land 92 vrs. east and west and 1209 vrs. north and south claimed to be vacant and to lie between Survey 104,
GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AGpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JANE J. BOYLE, District Judge. Software AG USA, Inc. and Software AG, Inc. (together, “SAG”), joined by Nan-*728iq Systems LLC (“Naniq”) (collectively, “Defendants”),1 move for summary judgment on Plaintiff GlobeRanger Corporation’s (“GlobeRanger”) four state law claims, which inc
Time Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Grimespublic domain
613 S.W.2d 40 (1981) TIME INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Appellant, v. Eula M. GRIMES, Individually and As Independent Executrix of the Estate of Don Grimes, Deceased et al., Appellees. No. 8820. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Texarkana. February 17, 1981. Rehearing Denied March 17, 1981. *41 Herbert Crook, Freytag, M
Bridgeport Independent School District v. Williamspublic domain
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OPINION Melissa Goodwin, Justice We withdraw our opinion issued on May 23, 2014, and substitute this one in its place. We overrule the appellant school districts’ motion for rehearing. The appellant school districts appeal from the trial court’s order of dismissal *914granting t