⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

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.

15 opinions for “Jones v. Salmonsen”

California Court of Appeal · 2025-10-03 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 9/5/25 Certified for Publication 10/3/25 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR MOHAMMAD NOOR AHMED, Plaintiff and Appellant, A170591 v. COLLECT ACCESS, LLC et al., (Alameda County Super. Defendants and Respondents. Ct. No. 23-CV-041122)
Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2024-01-24 · Published · cited 0×
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Peter Rice, Respondent, v. John Doe, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2021-000894 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS Appeal from Fairfield County Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 28190 Heard March 8, 2023 – Fil
California Court of Appeal, 5th District · 2018-05-22 · Published · cited 3× · 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 211; 23 Cal. App. 5th 685
Tucher, J.** *214*687Professional Collection Consultants (PCC) filed this action to collect credit card debt that Lujan incurred. The parties agree that if Delaware's three-year statute of limitations applies the action is time
California Court of Appeal · 2025-05-21 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 5/20/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OSMAN YUNUS GURACAR, H051407 (Santa Clara County Cross-Complainant and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 22CV405008) v. STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Cross-Defendants and Respondents.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2025-05-14 · Published · cited 0×
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Peter D. Protopapas, as Receiver for Starr Davis Company, Inc. and Starr Davis Company of S.C., Inc., Respondents, v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company f/k/a The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company; The Standard Fire Insurance Company; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company; The Employers' Fire Insurance Company; Southeastern Agency Group and M.I.A. Company, Inc., individually and as successors to or f/k/a Merrimon In
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-03-08 · Published · cited 2× · 2017 Ark. App. 148; 516 S.W.3d 764; 2017 Ark. App. LEXIS 151
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge | Commercial Fitness Concepts, LLC (Commercial Fitness), appeals from the April 18, 2016 judgment finding it liable for conversion of property belonging to WGL, LLC (WGL), and awarding WGL $9,682 in damages, plus interest and costs. Commercial Fitness raises three points of appeal, contending: 1) the trial court’s finding that WGL p
California Court of Appeal · 2022-08-22 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 8/8/22; Certified for Publication 8/22/22 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MARITZA PAREDES, H048092 (Santa Clara County Cross-complainant and Super. Ct. No. 18CV328603) Respondent, v. CREDI
California Court of Appeal · 2018-05-22 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 5/22/18 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION CONSULTANTS, A147922, A148925 Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Francisco City and County v.
California Court of Appeal · 2018-05-25 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 5/25/18 (unmodified opn. attached) Order modifying opinion filed 5/22/18 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION CONSULTANTS, A147922, A148925 Plaintiff and Appellant,
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012-09-21 · Published · cited 12× · 100 So. 3d 121; 2012 WL 4210309; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15893
LaROSE, Judge. Ghanzanfar Raza appeals the trial court’s order denying him attorney’s fees following the involuntary dismissal, without prejudice, of Deutsche Bank’s mortgage foreclosure lawsuit. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A); 9.110; Valcarcel v. Chase Bank USA NA, 54 So.3d 989, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“An order dismissing an action without prejudice and without granting leave to
California Court of Appeal · 2023-05-03 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 5/3/23; Opinion following rehearing CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR KACIE LYNN YOUNG, Plaintiff and Appellant, A161843, A162784 v. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC et al., No. 19-CIV-07622)
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2023-01-12 · Published · cited 8× · 57 F.4th 960
USCA11 Case: 21-13789 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 01/12/2023 Page: 1 of 37 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-13789 ____________________ ROYAL PALM VILLAGE RESIDENTS, INC., on
Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2024-03-06 · Published · cited 0×
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A22-0911 Court of Appeals McKeig, J. Concurring, Thissen, Procaccini, JJ. Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Filed: March 6, 2024
Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2017-02-15 · Published · cited 1× · 419 S.C. 172; 796 S.E.2d 843; 2017 WL 606506; 2017 S.C. LEXIS 29
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Jeffrey Allen Chapman, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2014-001181 Appeal From Greenville County The Honorable Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 27705 Heard May 17, 2016 – Filed February 15, 2017
Mosca v. Penskypublic domain
New York Supreme Court · 1973-01-19 · Published · cited 6× · 73 Misc. 2d 144; 341 N.Y.S.2d 219; 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2289
Frank S. McCullough, J. Defendant Herbert Pensky moves for a protective order and plaintiffs cross-move for an order *145compelling the production of an insurance policy. The within motions raise significant issues regarding the application of our statement of readiness rule and pretrial disclosure of insurance coverage and limits. The court shall consider the issues seri