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 “Gloria Jean Mims”
August 20, 2013 JUDGMENT The Fourteenth Court of Appeals GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellants V. TAMMYLERN CURRY, RICHARD SZYMANSKI, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF MARION SZYMANSKI, EMILIE WHITEHEAD, CONNIE BOHANNON, AND LINDA SCOTT, Appellees NO. 14-11-01093-CV NO. 14-12-00300-CV GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellants V. ALVAREZ, CAROLYN B., AMAN, MARIA
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed August 20, 2013. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-11-01093-CV GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, LLP, Appellants V. TAMMYLERN CURRY, RICHARD SZYMANSKI, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF MARION SZYMANSKI, EMILIE WHITEHEAD, CONNIE BOHANNON, AND LINDA SCOTT, Appellees On Appeal from the 215th District C
Matter of Attorneys Inviolation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (2024 NY Slip Op 04648) Matter of Attorneys Inviolation of Judiciary Law § 468-a 2024 NY Slip Op 04648 Decided on September 26, 2024 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by
Household Bank v. JFS GROUPpublic domain
191 F.Supp.2d 1292 (2002) HOUSEHOLD BANK, f.s.b., Plaintiff, v. JFS GROUP, et al., Defendants, H & R Block, et al., Plaintiffs/Intervenors. No. CIV.A. 01A1405N. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division. March 8, 2002. *1293 *1294 Stewart M. Cox, Andrew J. Noble, II
Hedgepath v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.public domain
348 S.C. 340 (2001) 559 S.E.2d 327 Wannelle HEDGEPATH, Andrew Hedgepath, and Kristin Hedgepath, Appellants/Respondents, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a corporation, AT & T Nassau Metals Corporation, Respondents/Appellants, and Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation, and Southwire Company, Respondents. Karen Mack as Personal Representative of the Estate of Toby L. Sharpe, Sr., Appellant/Respondent,
City of Dallas, Texas v. Arredondo, Anthonypublic domain
Affirm in part; Reverse and Render in part; Remand and Opinion Filed August 13, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas __________________________________ NO. 05-12-00963-CV CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellant V. ANTHONY ARREDONDO, CHARLES S. SWANER, JAM
City of Dallas, Texas v. Willis, Kevin Michaelpublic domain
Affirm in part; Reverse and Render in part; Remand and Opinion Filed August 13, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas __________________________________ NO. 05-12-00963-CV CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellant V. ANTHONY ARREDONDO, CHARLES S. SWANER, JAM
Robert Garrett Caldwell v. United Statespublic domain
HAMLIN, Circuit Judge. Robert Garrett Caldwell, appellant herein, was convicted after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c) (possession of stolen money with knowledge that it was stolen). 1 He filed a timely appeal to this court, whi
174 F.3d 1087 160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2650, 137 Lab.Cas. P 10,390,23 Employee Benefits Cas. 1073, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 1703 Terry A. GARVIN; John McGrail; Ferdnand Adamson; EdithAitken; Marva Akins; Douglas R. Allen; Shirley Allen;Loren Alm; Sheila Altman; Cornelious Anderson; Peggy C.Anderson; Claudette B. Anterin; Esther Arnold; Kenneth G.Arsenault; Jerry M. Ashley; Lindy Ashley; Johnice M.
Garvin v. American Telephonepublic domain
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH MAR 5 1999 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK FISHER Clerk
State v. Colemanpublic domain
756 So.2d 1218 (2000) STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Kevin COLEMAN, Appellant. No. 32,906-KA. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. April 5, 2000. Rehearing Denied May 4, 2000. *1225 Indigent Defender Board by John M. Lawrence, Counsel for Appellant. Richard Ieyoub, Attorney General James M. Bull
Marilyn v. Statepublic domain
Roe, C.J. This cause coming on to be heard on the joint stipulation of the parties hereto, the Court being fully advised in the premises, finds; That the multiple-party group of Claimants listed herein consists of 540 Claimants seeking individual judgments of varying amounts. These claims, in the aggregate amount of five hundred ninety thousand six hundred thirty-four do
Schaefer v. Tannianpublic domain
CONSENT JUDGMENT GADOLA, District Judge. This matter having come before the Court upon the stipulation of the parties to the entry of a Consent Judgment finally and fully resolving all of the remaining claims in this action; and It appearing to the Court that this action, initially commenced some twenty-two years ago, involves claims of discrimination based upon gender in hi
City of Dallas v. Arredondopublic domain
OPINION Opinion by Justice LANG-MIERS. The City of Dallas filed these interlocutory appeals from orders denying its pleas to the jurisdiction in four lawsuits filed against the City by current and former police officers, firefighters, and rescue officers (the Officers) alleging that the City breached its contract with them regarding their pay. We consolidated the appeals for the purpose of
ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV
ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV
Fleming v. Currypublic domain
OPINION TRACY CHRISTOPHER, Justice. In these consolidated appeals, we review the summary judgments granted to several hundred plaintiffs on their breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against the attorney and law firm that represented them in their personal-injury claims arising from their use of diet drugs. The law firm screened tens of thousands of clients for eligibility to opt out of a class-action settleme
215 F.Supp.2d 795 (2002) In re NORPLANT CONTRACEPTIVE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. MDL No. 1038. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division. August 14, 2002. *796 *797 Christopher Matthew Parks, Parker & Parks, Port Arthur, TX, for Plaintiffs. F. Lane Heard III, Williams
Garvin v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.public domain
BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge. Terry A. Garvin, et al., (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT & T) on their claims to recover termination allowances brought pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Facts Appellant
ACCEPTED 03-14-00518-CV 6061835 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS