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.
7 opinions for “Headley v. Ulrich”
Harmon v. Headleypublic domain
95 S.W.3d 154 (2003) Heath HARMON, Appellant, v. Sandra HEADLEY, Defendant; Harry Nitchals, Respondent, Taylor Nitchals, Defendant. No. WD 61068. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. January 28, 2003. *155 Meryl Lynn Lange, Raymore, MO, for appellant. James E. Switzer, Clinton, MO, for respondent. Be
In re Ulrichpublic domain
BURRELL, J. The petition states that at the election held in the town of Bath, Steuben county, N. Y., on the 2d day of November, 1909, a vote was had pursuant to the provisions of the liquor tax law (Consol. Laws, c. 34), to determine whether liquor should be sold in said town; that on the question of the sale of liquor by hotel keepers the returns show that 827 persons voted in favor of and 847 persons voted against said questi
ULRICH, Judge. The West Central Missouri Regional Lodge No. 50, Fraternal Order of Police (the Lodge) and Mel Beverlin, James Venable and Wayne Owings, individually, appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri, James F. Ralls, Jr., Jack W.R. Headley, Dona Boley, Dr. Stacey Daniels and Mayor Emanuel Cleaver (collectively the Board). The Lodge all
United States v. Rogerspublic domain
491 F.Supp.2d 530 (2007) UNITED STATES of America v. Trevino E. ROGERS. Criminal No. 1:06-CR-0438. United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. June 21, 2007. *531 Frederick W. Ulrich, Federal Public Defender's Office, Harrisburg, PA, for Trevino E. Rogers. Joseph J. Terz, U.S. Attorney's Office, Harrisburg, PA, for Un
In re Teles AG Informationstechnologienpublic domain
DYK, Circuit Judge. Teles AG Informationstechnologien and Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH (collectively, “Teles”) own all substantial rights in U.S. Patent No. 6,954,453 (“the '453 patent”) on a method and apparatus for transmitting data in a telecommunications network. The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) conducted an ex parte reexamination of the '453 patent and rejected claims 34-36 and 38 as o
Inre: Teles Ag Informationpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ IN RE TELES AG INFORMATIONSTECHNOLOGIEN AND SIGRAM SCHINDLER BETEILIGUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH ______________________ 2012-1297 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Reexamination No. 90/010, 017.
Hill v. Hillpublic domain
185 Kan. 389 (1959) 345 P.2d 1015 W.E. HILL, Appellant, v. MYRTLE BESSIE HILL, (Revived in the name of Pearl G. Garriott, Administratrix of the Estate of Myrtle Bessie Hill, Deceased), Appellee. No. 41,324 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed November 7, 1959. Elvin D. Perkins, of Emporia, argued the cause, and Everett E. Steerman