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 “Joan Gayle Council”
Klein v. Council of City of Pittsburghpublic domain
164 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 521 (1994) 643 A.2d 1107 Roger KLEIN, Helen Klein, Stuart C. Gaul, Joan B. Gaul, J. Murray Egan, Gayle C. Kirkwood, John M. Kirkwood, Richard F. Andracki, David W. Greve, Neil F. Jones, and Susan Stauffer, Appellants, v. COUNCIL OF the CITY OF PITTSBURGH and City of Pittsburgh and Shadyside Health, Education and Research Corporation. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.</
OPINION REINHARDT, Circuit Judge. Since 1984, an association of property owners known as the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council (“Association”) has been engaged in litigation challenging the regulatory program that protects one of the most pristine environmental habitats on the planet. The Association has fought vigorously for the interests of owners of property in the Lake Tahoe Basin (“Basin”), an aes
Tierney v. Lantzpublic domain
DONIELSON, Judge. In 1975, Lyman Kentner, a widower with eight adult children, married Zella, a widow with three adult children. Shortly after their marriage, Zella transferred her house in Kansas to herself and Lyman as joint tenants, and Lyman transferred his home in Missouri to himself and Zella as tenants by the entirety. In 1976, they sold the Missouri real estate and lived together in the Kansas home. In 1984, Lyman died
| JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Judge. This is an action appealing a zoning decision by the City Council of New Orleans. The trial court dismissed the action of the plaintiffs-appellants. Because we find suit was untimely filed, so that this action is prescribed or preempted, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. The zoning decision at issue is the City Council’s enactment of two ordinances, referred to in
Roth v. Bookertpublic domain
FRANCHINI, Justice (dissenting). I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court need not make a separate finding of unfitness before terminating parental rights, and I agree with the conclusion that the presumption of abandonment may be rebutted by a showing that the destruction of the parent-child relationship was not caused by parental conduct. I also emphatic
Teague v. Johnson & Johnsonpublic domain
FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 11, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court VICKIE SCHMIDT PARSON; PATRICIA SCALES;
United States v. Russellpublic domain
662 F.3d 831 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dale RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-2259. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued February 7, 2011. Decided November 10, 2011. *832 Gayle L. Helart (argued), Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Indianapolis, IN,
Ballow v. PHICO Insurance Co.public domain
878 P.2d 672 (1994) Edward BALLOW, D.P.M.; Foot Associates, P.C.; Mark P. Berland, D.O.; Richard N. Bernhardt, M.D., Richard N. Bernhardt, M.D., P.C.; Leonard D. Bernstein, M.D., The OB/GYN Associates, P.C.; J. Tashof Bernton, M.D.; J. Tashof Bernton, M.D., P.C.; Roland J. Brandt, D.O.; High Country Orthopedic Associates of Colorado Springs, P.C.; Robert A. Brumfield, M.D.; Rustic Hills Orthopaedic Association, P.C.; W.M. Campbell, M.D.; Southern Colorad
Williams v. United Statespublic domain
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 4 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
DeBoer v. Schmidtpublic domain
Levin, J. (dissenting). I would agree with the majority’s analysis if the DeBoers had gone to Iowa, purchased a carload of hay from Cara Clausen, and then found themselves in litigation in Iowa with Daniel Schmidt, who also claimed an interest in the hay. It could then properly be said that the DeBoers "must be taken to have known”1 that, rightly or wrongly, the Iowa courts might rule against them, and
164 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 546 (1994) 643 A.2d 1120 Roger KLEIN, Helen Klein, Stuart C. Gaul, Joan B. Gaul, J. Murray Egan, Gayle C. Kirkwood, John M. Kirkwood, Richard F. Andracki, David W. Greve, Neil F. Jones, Susan Stauffer, Charles A. Scudder and Judith A. Stewart, Appellants, v. SHADYSIDE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CORPORATION and the City of Pittsburgh. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvani
322 F.3d 1064 TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., a California non-profit corporation and membership organization; Joseph R. Abrahamson and Charlene Z. Abrahamson, as Co-Trustees of the Joseph R. Abrahamson and Charlene Z. Abrahamson Family Trust; Jane S. Akdoruk; Jesse Aldatz, Jr.; Hugh C. Alexander; Raymond D. Allen, as Trustee of the Allen 1989 Revocable Trust; Gordon Alley; Bruno Alpi; Ernest Arnold; William L. Asay; Edith B. Asay; Nichola
Ashleson v. Labor & Industry Review Commissionpublic domain
216 Wis.2d 23 (1997) 573 N.W.2d 554 Mary ASHLESON, Kelly Barthman, Wendy Bowe, Noel Capra, Dorothy Chenal, Janet Chladek, Nancy Cooper, Janette Cysewski, Donnis DeLong, Mary Donatelle, Sharon Edwards, Nila Fransway, Beth Gerth, Tracy Grant, Rena Gravunder, Linda Hefty, Amy Henderson, Sandra Hilger, Diane Hodgson, Jan Hoehne, Connie Hovland, Chris Hulback, Raynelda Jaworski, Carol Kallstrom, Terry Kelzer, Joan Klatt, Wanda Knez, Na
Riverbluff Coop. v. City of Memphispublic domain
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ______________________________________________ RIVERBLUFF COOPERATIVE, INC., CHICKASAW BLUFF COOPERATIVE, INC., KEVIN KANE, DAVID AND KAY SOLOMON, T. J. AND EIGA ODEN, DENNIS AND LANA SMITH, ULYS FILED AND JOAN WARD, JAY AND PAT July 24, 1998 FERGUSON, STANTON BR
Allen v. G.D. Searle & Co.public domain
708 F.Supp. 1142 (1989) Debra Joan ALLEN and Anthony Paul Allen, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. G.D. SEARLE & CO., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Donna KEYS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. G.D. SEARLE & CO., a corporation, and Searle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a corporation, Defendants. Civil Nos. 86-1402-FR, 86-1659-FR. United States District Court, D. Oregon.
Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co.public domain
FILED: March 9, 2000 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT JOAN CALDWELL JOHNSON; LORRAINE WITHERSPOON BAKER; DANNY KAY SMITH; SARA EDELL BOAN; DEANNA KAY FRANS; DARRYL BERNARD EPPS; ANDREW NOBLES; JOSEPH CHESTER WALKER; WILLIAM JOSEPH HARNETT, JR.; BRUCE ANDERSON; WILLIAM BELL; FAYE BLAYLOCK; MIKE BREWER; MIKE BROWN; RONALD CALLAHAN; SANDRA COULTER; LISA CRUM; ANDREAS DRUTIS; CRYSTAL GAYLE EDWARDS; BUSTER ELFIN FLOYD; GEORGE HENLEY; LORETTA JONES; MARGARET LOCKLEAR
Mulholland v. Careypublic domain
BLOCK, District Judge. Presently before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs are members of the Independence Party *167of New York from Kings County and seek to preclude the New York City Board of Elections (“Board of Elections”) from removing the names of six candidates from the ballot for the Independence Party primary election to
Erika Amey, Individually and D/B/A Erika's Emporium and Pam New v. Mirella and Senovio Barrerapublic domain
Erika Amey, Individually and d/b/a Erika's Emporium and Pam New v. Barrera NUMBER 13-01-00130-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Ballow v. PHICO Insurance Co.public domain
Justice MULLARKEY delivered the Opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari in this ease to address several issues arising out of a medical malpractice insurance carrier’s withdrawal from the Colorado market. The trial court, in a 294-page order, ruled in favor of the petitioners who are the doctors formerly insured by the medical malpractice insurance carrier. It held that the insurance carrier breached its
People v. Towlerpublic domain
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 107 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 108 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAY