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 “Kristopher Allan Wallace”
Sylvano Sanchez v. the State of Texaspublic domain
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00199-CR Sylvano Sanchez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY NO. 49217, THE HONORABLE J. ALLAN GARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION App
ORDER ON GONZAGA’S MOTION FOR [PARTIAL] SUMMARY JUDGMENT LONNY R. SUKO, Senior District Judge. BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff Corporation of Gonzaga University’s (“Gonzaga”) Motion For Summary Judgment 1 (ECF No. 21) filed on July 16, 2014. Oral argument was held on September 4, 2014 in Spokane, Washington. Defendants opposed the motion (ECF No. 26). The court took Gonzaga’s
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fordpublic domain
EYLER, JAMES R., J., concurring and dissenting, in which HOTTEN, J., joins. These consolidated cases arise from the leakage of gasoline from a gasoline service station, located at the corner of Jarrettsville Pike and Paper Mill Road in the Jacksonville area of Baltimore County. The station was owned by Exxon-Mobil Corporation, appellant. The leak occurred, on January 13, 2006, whe
Daniel Campbell v. City of Los Angelespublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL CAMPBELL; et al, * No. 15-56990 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 2:04-cv-08592- AG-AJW CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. CESAR MATA,
ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV
ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV
Forces Action Project, LLC v. Californiapublic domain
MEMORANDUM * Plaintiffs, a class of “consumers of tobacco products,” allege that the states of California and Utah, the city of San Francisco, and several tobacco companies (collectively, Defendants) violated their rights to equal protection and due process when Defendants entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). The district court dismissed the action, holding that Plaintiffs do not have standing