⚖ 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.

6 opinions for “Odell Todd and Linda Walters Todd”

Michigan Court of Appeals · 2023-09-07 · Published · cited 0×
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DAVID KRIEGER, ANDREW KRIEGER, JAMES FOR PUBLICATION SPERLING, and MARGARET SPERLING, on September 7, 2023 Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly 9:05 a.m. Si
Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2004-11-10 · Published · cited 0× · 166 S.W.3d 514; 2004 Tex. LEXIS 1462; 2004 WL 3328645
APPOINTMENT OF PRETRIAL JUDGE IN THE FOLLOWING MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION CASE: Pursuant to Administrative Rule 13, the cases listed on Appendix A, attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes, and tag-along cases if any, are transferred to Judge Tracy Christopher of the 295th District Court of Harris County. Justice CASTILLO not sitting. APPENDIX A Amended Appendix A, Part I and
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002-04-17 · Published · cited 5× · 52 Fed. Cl. 881; 287 F.3d 1076; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7223; 82 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,082; 88 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1066; 2002 WL 654368
DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting. In endorsing a facial challenge to a memorandum, and in holding that the memorandum must be assumed to dictate racial and gender discrimination without a factual hearing, the majority acts contrary to Supreme Court precedent and our own decision in Baker v. United States, 127 F.3d 1081 (Fed.Cir.1997). The majority’s approach is unsupported by any decision of the Supreme
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001-08-31 · Published · cited 0× · 264 F.3d 344; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19616
OPINION OF THE COURT REAVLEY, Circuit Judge. This Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for granting clearance to market certain types of pedicle screw fixation devices (referred to generally as bone screws) was dismissed by the District Court pursuant to the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 Appellants contend here that