⚖ 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.

4 opinions for “Nancy Jean Kiley”

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981-02-18 · Published · cited 106× · 417 N.E.2d 387; 382 Mass. 629
382 Mass. 629 (1981) 417 N.E.2d 387 MARY MOE & others[1] vs. SECRETARY OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE & others.[2] Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk. September 8, 1980. February 18, 1981. Present: HENNESSEY, C.J., QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, KAPLAN, WILKINS, LIACOS, & ABRAMS, JJ. Nancy Gertner<
Matter of Duckmanpublic domain
New York Court of Appeals · 1998-07-07 · Published · cited 15× · 699 N.E.2d 872; 92 N.Y.2d 141; 677 N.Y.S.2d 248; 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 1831
92 N.Y.2d 141 (1998) 699 N.E.2d 872 677 N.Y.S.2d 248 In the Matter of Lorin M. Duckman, a Judge of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County, Petitioner. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Respondent. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued April 28, 1998 Decided July 7, 1998. Ronald G. Russo
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017-08-21 · Published · cited 93× · 868 F.3d 231
OPINION SMITH, Chief Judge. This opinion addresses two sets of consolidated appeals concerning two pharmaceutical drugs: Lipitor and Effexor XR. In both sets of consolidated appeals, plaintiffs allege that the companies holding the patents related to Lipitor and Effexor XR fraudulently procured and enforced certain of those patents. Plaintiffs further all
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011-04-22 · Published · cited 1× · 424 F. App'x 198
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order sua sponte dismissing their complaint against Defendants for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Allran v. Wells Fargo, No. 3:10-cv-00200-GCM