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.
18 opinions for “Rachel Joy Larson”
Elizabeth Hunter v. Usedupublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELIZABETH HUNTER; VERONICA No. 23-35174 BONIFACIO PENALES; ALEX DURON; ZAYN SILVA; RACHEL D.C. No. 6:21-cv- MOULTON; VICTORIA JOY 00474-AA BACON; HAYDEN BROWN; BROOKE C.; GARY CAMPBELL; TRISTAN CAMPBELL; NATALIE OPINION CARTER; RACHEL HELD; LAUREN HOEKSTRA; CHANDLER HORNING; JONATHAN JONES; ASHTIN MARKOWSKI; CAMERON MARTINEZ; MACKENZIE MCCANN; DARREN MCDON
03/22/2021 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 13, 2021 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RONALD LYONS, JAMES MICHAEL USINGER, LEE HAROLD CROMWELL, AUSTIN GARY COOPER, AND CHRISTOPHER ALAN HAUSER Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County Nos. 2017-A-79; 2
Tornes v. Bank of America, N.A.public domain
ORDER PRELIMINARILYAPPROVING CLASS SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. The parties to the above-captioned actions currently pending against Bank of America, N.A. (“BofA”) as part of this multidistrict litigation have agreed to a settlement, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in an executed Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement”
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
People v. Lynchpublic domain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEANDRE LYNCH, Defendant and Appellant. S274942 Third Appellate District C094174 Sacramento County Superior Court 20FE009532 August 1, 2024 Jus
TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.public domain
646 F.3d 869 (2011) TIVO INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ECHOSTAR CORPORATION, EchoStar DBS Corporation, EchoStar Technologies Corporation, EchoSphere Limited Liability Company, EchoStar Satellite LLC, and Dish Network Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. No. 2009-1374. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. April 20, 2011. *873</
Fujimoto v. Aupublic domain
19 P.3d 699 (2001) 95 Hawai`i 116 James FUJIMOTO, Virginio Lista, Duane Owan, Mitchell Owan, Michael McDonald, James Takamiya, and Gary Hashimoto, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants and Appellees, v. Gordon AU, Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Counterclaimant Appellee, Bruce Sutherland, Nancy Sutherland, Larry Sky, Bon Ja Sky, Defendants/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/Cross-Claim Defendants-Appe
264 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2001) IN RE: ORTHOPEDIC BONE SCREW PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1014)J.T. Bradley and Kathy W. Bradley, Appellants in No. 00-3899Regina M. Luellen and Eurston Luellen, Sr., Appellants in No. 00-3900Randal Jon Uribe, Appellant in No. 00-3901Mitchell H. Walker and Kim S. Walker, Appellants in No. 00-3902Jose Morfin, Appellant in No. 00-3903Mary K. Mullen Schmelter and Kurt Allen Schmelter, Appel
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court
United States v. Arrowhead Refining Co.public domain
829 F.Supp. 1078 (1992) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ARROWHEAD REFINING COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ARROWHEAD REFINING COMPANY, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Rodney A. ANDERSON, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Civ. No. 5-89-0202. United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fifth Division. December 21, 1992.
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr
OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. Section 468-a of the Judiciary Law requires every resident *35and nonresident attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York to file a biennial registration statement with the administrative office of the courts. A biennial registration fee must be paid at the time the statement is filed. This registration state
ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV
ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV
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
United States v. Arrowhead Refining Co.public domain
ORDER MAGNUSON, District Judge. This matter is before the court on the defendants’ and third-party plaintiffs’ objections to Magistrate Judge McNulty’s Report and Recommendation dated November 10, 1992 granting third party defendant Mobil’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to statute, the court has conducted a de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.1(c). Bas
Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Abshirepublic domain
OPINION David Puryear, Justice In three separate lawsuits, several hundred individuals sued Asplundh Tree Expert Co. (“Asplundh”) seeking damages stemming from the devastating 2011 Bas-trop County Complex Fire. In response, Asplundh filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the suits were untimely because they were filed past the two-year statute of limitations. After convening a hearing on the moti
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