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 “MARY LOUISE ASH”
Mary Louise Serafine// Alexander and Ashley Blunt v. Alexander and Ashley Blunt// Cross Mary Louise Serafinepublic domain
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-20-00294-CV Appellant, Mary Louise Serafine// Cross-Appellants, Alexander and Ashley Blunt v. Appellees, Alexander and Ashley Blunt// Cross Appellee, Mary Louise Serafine FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-12-001270, THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
Mary Louise Rosas v. Statepublic domain
Mary Louise Rosas v. The State of Texas IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-97-199-CR
Mary Louise Bell v. Dorothy Arn, Supt.public domain
CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge. This is an appeal by the State of Ohio, Respondent-Appellant, from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, granting a writ of habeas corpus to Mary Louise Bell, petitioner-appellee. The appellee, until released on bond in this action, was confined in the Ohio Reformatory for Women at Marysville,
ACCEPTED 03-16-00131-CV 12911642 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
ORDER Amy Totenberg, United States District Judge This False Claims Act (“FCA”) case centers on Relators’ allegations that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (‘Wells Fargo”) en*1343gaged in a fraudulent scheme to overcharge veterans on closing costs when those veterans refinanced their mortgages through the United States Department of Veterans A
ORDER Amy Totenberg, United States District Judge This False Claims Act case centers on Relators’ allegations that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) engaged in a fraudulent scheme to overcharge veterans on closing costs when those veterans refinanced their mortgages through the United States Veteran’s Administration’s (“VA”) Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loan (“IRRRL”) program.
Manley v. Air Canadapublic domain
753 F.Supp.2d 551 (2010) Thomas J. MANLEY, Plaintiff, v. AIR CANADA, Defendant. No. 5:10-CV-336-FL. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. November 29, 2010. *554 Kristy Lynn Rice, Melanie Black Dubis, Robert W. Spearman, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff. *555 Ma
Ash v. Wesleypublic domain
Spbatley, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The facts in this case are without conflict. The answer to the questions raised depends upon the effect of these facts. They will be, therefore, stated somewhat fully. J. W. Ash, being forced to secure new quarters for his business, through his agent, approached Messrs. E. S. Euffln and Sons, attorneys, with reference to the purchase of a l
Chauvel v. Nyquistpublic domain
Koreman, P. J. In June, 1972 the respondent board abol*77ished the junior high school French program and terminated the employment of petitioner who was a certified and tenured teacher of French. Petitioner was informed that she would be placed on a preferred eligibility list and would be entitled to reinstatement if the program was re-established within the next four year
Berg v. D.D.M.public domain
603 N.W.2d 361 (1999) Mary Louise BERG, Appellant, v. D.D.M., Respondent. No. C4-99-905. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. December 21, 1999. *362 Patricia A. O'Gorman, Patricia A. O'Gorman, P.A., Cottage Grove, for appellant. Larry B. Leventhal, Larry Leventhal & Associates, Minneapolis; and Larry Meuwissen, Meuwissen &a;
in Re Eduardo Del Pinopublic domain
Opinion issued March 4, 2021 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00674-CV ——————————— IN RE EDUARDO DEL PINO, SPRING DEL PINO, ROBERT RUGGLES, GLORIA RUGGLES, ROBERT DAWKINS, DEMETRIA DAWKINS, EDDIE DELANEY, JENNIFER DELANEY, LEROY DELK, CAROLE DELK, MARTI
OPINION AND ORDER MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge. Before this Court is Defendant International Brotherhood .of Electrical Workers Local Union 772’s (“Local 772”) Motion for Summary Judgment brought pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 52.) Local 772 submits that summary judgment should be entered in its favor on all counts of the Amended Complaint brought by Plai
Ross-Caleb v. City of Rochesterpublic domain
DECISION and ORDER MICHAEL A. TELESCA, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Terra Ross-Caleb, (“Ross-Caleb”) Alfonda Crawford, (“Crawford”) Jewanta Desardouin, (“Ms. Desardouin”) Theresa Smith, (“Smith”) and Jean Claude Desardouin (“Mr. Desardouin”) all current or former employees of the defendant City of Rochester (“the City”), bring this action for employment discrimina
Estate of Weill v. Weillpublic domain
GRIFFIS, P.J., for the Court: ¶ 1. This appeal considers when a decedent’s spouse can renounce a will. Janelle Skinner Weill, the decedent’s spouse, filed a motion to renounce the will. The chancellor denied the motion. On appeal, Janelle argues that it was error for the chancellor to: (1) find no renunciation of the will by operation of law; (2) find the decedent’s spouse did not timely renounce the will; an
Kassouf v. Lee Bros., Inc.public domain
209 Cal.App.2d 568 (1962) MARY LOUISE KASSOUF, Plaintiff and Respondent v. LEE BROS., INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. No. 19671. California Court of Appeals. First Dist., Div. Three. Nov. 15, 1962. Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, John S. Howell, George E. Sayre, William J. Hayes, Hardin, Fletcher, Cook & Hayes and Cyril Viadro for Defendan
Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. Board of Equalizationpublic domain
Opinion HUMES, P. J. Appellants Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P., Sprint Spectrum L.P., Wirelessco, L.P., Nextel of California, Inc., and Nextel Boost of California, LLC (collectively referred to as Sprint or the company), filed this action seeking a refund on taxes they paid on property assessed by respondent Board of Equalization (the Board). The Legislature has mandated that for a telephone company to file such a
O'BRIEN v. Grumman Corp.public domain
475 F.Supp. 284 (1979) Rosemary B. O'BRIEN, etc., Plaintiff, v. GRUMMAN CORPORATION and Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Defendants. Rosemary B. O'BRIEN, etc., Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. GRUMMAN AMERICAN AVIATION CORPORATION, Defendant. Angela W. MURPHY, etc., Plaintiff, v. GRUMMAN AMERICAN AVIATION CORPORATION,
Bibbee v. Bibbeepublic domain
[Cite as Bibbee v. Bibbee, 2018-Ohio-3278.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ATHENS COUNTY SHERRY LOUISE BIBBEE, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : Case No. 17CA25 vs. : JERRY RICHARD BIBBEE, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
All Justices concur. Attachment Adams County 30678-01 CLE Jill Nicole Holtzclaw *2416061 W US Hwy 224 Decatur, Indiana 46733 Allen County 2658-02 CLE <
Neel v. Pippypublic domain
247 F.Supp.2d 707 (2003) Harry NEEL, Robert T. Stevens, and Mary Louise McDowell, Plaintiffs, v. John R. PIPPY, friends of John Pippy, Benjamin Ramos, and Paul Gitnick, Defendants. Senator Robert C. Jubelirer, President Pro Tempore, Senate of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae, Mike Fisher, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae. No. 03-CV-302. United States District Court, W.D.