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 “Hugh Ronnie Wallace and Nancy Katherine Wallace”
Mills v. Abbottpublic domain
350 S.W.3d 813 (2011) Melbourne MILLS, Jr; Bertha Darlene La; J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; and Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellants, v. Mildred ABBOTT; Lisa Abraham; Juanita Alton; Joann Alvey; Cindy Armstrong; Linda Back; Carla Baldwin; Lee Bartley, Jr; Patricia Belcher; Leisa Belding: Eleanor Berry; Margie Berry; Carol Boggs; Angie Bowman; James Branham; Kathy Branham; Norma Brewer; Karen Brown; Deborah Browning; Nathaniel Brumfield, on behalf
264 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2001) IN RE: ORTHOPEDIC BONE SCREW PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1014)J.T. Bradley and Kathy W. Bradley, Appellants in No. 00-3899Regina M. Luellen and Eurston Luellen, Sr., Appellants in No. 00-3900Randal Jon Uribe, Appellant in No. 00-3901Mitchell H. Walker and Kim S. Walker, Appellants in No. 00-3902Jose Morfin, Appellant in No. 00-3903Mary K. Mullen Schmelter and Kurt Allen Schmelter, Appel
State v. Olandio R. Workmanpublic domain
Judicial Merit Selection Commission Sen. Luke A. Rankin, Chairman Erin B. Crawford, Chief Counsel Sen. Ronnie A. Sabb Emma Dean, Counsel Sen. Scott Talley Rep. J. Todd Rutherford Rep. Jeffrey E. “Jeff” Johnson Rep. Micajah P. “Micah” Caskey, IV Hope Blackley Lucy Grey McIver Andrew N. Safran J.P. “Pete” Strom Jr.
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
Dueck v. Clifton Club Co.public domain
[Cite as Dueck v. Clifton Club Co., 2017-Ohio-7161.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 103868 and 103888 ARTHUR P. DUECK, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
First General Realty Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co.public domain
981 S.W.2d 495 (1998) FIRST GENERAL REALTY CORPORATION, et al., Appellants, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Appellees. No. 03-97-00580-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. November 30, 1998. *496 Ronald D. Wren, Bedford, for Appellants. Barry Bishop, Clark, Thomas & Winters, Austin, for Appellees. Before
ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 3762693 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/14/201
ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4519217 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/16/20
ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4243321 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
Williams v. Town of Kernersvillepublic domain
WYNN, Judge. Under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-50, petitioners brought this action for judicial review of two annexation ordinances adopted by the town council of the Town of Kernersville. One ordinance (“South Annexation Ordinance”) sought to involuntarily annex an area to the south of the town (“South Area”); the other ordinance *736(“West Annexation Or
Albright v. United Statespublic domain
ORDER YOCK, Judge. This civilian overtime and premium pay dispute is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed on June 4, 1990. For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Facts All the plaintiffs in this case are guards employed by the United States Department of
Abbott v. Chesleypublic domain
Opinion of the Court by Justice VENTERS. This case arose in the aftermath of the settlement of Darla S. Guard, et' ál. v. American Home Products, Inc. (Guard).1 The Guard case, which is also known as “Jonetta Moore, et al. v. American Home Products, Inc.,” or the “Moore ” case, was brought by Kentucky residents who had taken th
Glass v. Commissionerpublic domain
NlMS, Judge: In these consolidated cases, respondent determined aggregate deficiencies in excess of $61 million in petitioners’ Federal income taxes for the years 1975 through 1980.2 Each of the petitioners in these cases entered into a series of transactions herein sometimes referred to for convenience as the London Options Transaction. Th
OPINION OF THE COURT REAVLEY, Circuit Judge. This Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for granting clearance to market certain types of pedicle screw fixation devices (referred to generally as bone screws) was dismissed by the District Court pursuant to the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 Appellants contend here that