⚖ 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.

20 opinions for “Reynolds v. Bancorp South”

United States Court of Federal Claims · 2003-03-04 · Published · cited 0× · 56 Fed. Cl. 596; 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 100; 2003 WL 21437159
OPINION FIRESTONE, Judge. Currently pending before the court are two motions by plaintiff American Heritage Bancorp (“AHB”). The first is AHB’s August 15, 2002 motion to strike or dismiss defendant United States’s (“government’s”) defenses and counterclaims in this Winstar-related litigation. AHB contends that the government’s defenses and counterclaims to its breach of contract claims should be
Reynolds v. Schrockpublic domain
Oregon Supreme Court · 2006-09-08 · Published · cited 18× · 142 P.3d 1062; 341 Or. 338; 2006 Ore. LEXIS 825
142 P.3d 1062 (2006) 341 Or. 338 Diane REYNOLDS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Clyde G. Reynolds, Respondent on Review, v. Donna SCHROCK, fka Donna Frechette, Defendant, and Charles R. Markley; and Greene & Markley, P.C., an Oregon professional corporation, Petitioners on Review. (CC C991357CV; CA A119200; SC S52503). Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.</
District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2002-03-25 · Published · cited 15× · 192 F. Supp. 2d 467
192 F.Supp.2d 467 (2002) INTERNATIONAL BANCORP, L.L.C., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOCIETE DES BAINS DE MER ET DU CERCLE DES ETRANGERS A MONACO, Defendant. No. CIV.A.01-115-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. March 25, 2002. *468 *469
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009-03-18 · Published · cited 65× · 559 F.3d 1317; 90 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1257; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5572; 2009 WL 691322
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge SCHALL. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge LINN. SCHALL, Circuit Judge. This is a patent case. Larson Manufacturing Company of South Dakota, Inc. (“Larson”), appeals the final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota dismissing its suit against Aluminart Products Limited and Chamberdoor Industries, Inc. (together, “Al
District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2002-03-25 · Published · cited 26× · 192 F. Supp. 2d 467; 62 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1621; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5571
REVISED MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ELLIS, District Judge. This declaratory judgment trademark infringement action pits the owner of Mon-aco’s famed gambling establishment, Casino de Monte Carlo, against an individual and five companies who have registered fifty-three “.com” and “.net” domain names that incorporate, in various ways, the name “Casino de Monte Carlo.” The dispositi
Texas Supreme Court · 2025-05-16 · Published · cited 0×
Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 24-0206 ══════════ Megatel C90-2, Inc., Armin Afzalipour, and Megatel Homes, LLC f/k/a Megatel Homes, Inc., Petitioners, v. Bank of Utah, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition f
Mississippi Supreme Court · 2014-04-10 · Published · cited 2× · 135 So. 3d 882; 2014 WL 1395025; 2014 Miss. LEXIS 197
KITCHENS, Justice, for the Court: ¶ 1. This is an appeal from the DeSoto County Circuit Court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of BancorpSouth Bank. In 2010, the residence of Brent and Amy Hubbard secured a note and deed of trust held by Trustmark National Bank. Additionally, the Hubbards obtained a second loan, which was secured by a note and second deed of trust held by BancorpSouth on the same residence. In 201
Griffith v. Steinpublic domain
Supreme Court of Delaware · 2022-08-16 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SEAN J. GRIFFITH, § § Objector Below, § Appellant, § § v. § § SHIVA STEIN, derivatively on behalf§ of The Goldman Sachs Group, § Inc., and individually as a § stockholder of The Goldman § No. 264, 2021 Sachs Group, Inc.,
District Court, D. South Dakota · 2012-03-08 · Published · cited 0× · 857 F. Supp. 2d 886; 52 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2102; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31443; 2012 WL 761297
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS ROBERTO A. LANGE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See Dakota, Minn. E. R.R. Corp. v. Schieffer, 648 F.3d 935 (8th Cir.2011). The question on remand is whether there exists subject matter jurisdiction over the present action. This Court previously determined that t
Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2022-11-15 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2021-CA-00728-COA GREG BROWN APPELLANT v. RHONDA BROWN APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/10/2021 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MITCHELL M. LUNDY JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATT
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2016-08-19 · Published · cited 15× · 127 Fed. Cl. 700; 2016 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1164; 2016 WL 4411533
Motion to Dismiss; Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Pro Se Plaintiff; Collateral Attack of State Court Judgment; Fraud; Mistake; Conspiracy; Trespass; Fifth Amendment Taking; Lack of Jurisdiction OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs pro se complaint for lack of subjec
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2022-03-15 · Published · cited 62× · 28 F.4th 383
18-1170 Exxon Mobil v. Healey United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2019 Argued: February 18, 2020 Decided: March 15, 2022 No. 18-1170 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
District Court, E.D. New York · 2017-06-16 · Published · cited 14× · 255 F. Supp. 3d 406; 2017 WL 2609605; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93172
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Joseph F. Bianco, District Judge: Plaintiffs Flexborrow LLC (“Flexbor-row”) and The Vault Auto Group, LLC (“Vault”) (collectively, “plaintiffs”) bring this action against defendant TD Auto Finance LLC (“TDAF” or “defendant”), alleging (1) a substantive violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and conspiracy to violate
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2013-12-13 · Published · cited 7× · 987 F. Supp. 2d 830; 2013 WL 6571165; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177126
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RUBEN CASTILLO, Chief Judge. Plaintiff Richard Beiles'brings this action against Defendants Chris Traynor and the City of Chicago (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging false arrest in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), malicious prosecution under Illinois law, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois law. Presently before the Court i
Supreme Court of Alabama · 2013-12-06 · Published · cited 5× · 150 So. 3d 1010; 2013 WL 6361010
MOORE, Chief Justice (concurring specially). I concur with the decision of the Court to deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. I write specially to explain my reasons for denying the petition: (1) the petitioners’ delay in moving to strike the demand for a jury trial and (2) the unconstitutionality of predispute contractual jury waivers as violating the right to a jury trial.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2021-03-12 · Published · cited 0×
USCA11 Case: 18-14797 Date Filed: 03/12/2021 Page: 1 of 35 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-14797 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cv-00381-WFJ-AAS BETTY M. SMITH, as
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2022-11-17 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OXY USA INC., and CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, No. 19-694C (Filed: November 17, 2022) Plaintiffs, Contract; Motion to Dismiss; v. RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2011-12-30 · Published · cited 0× · 843 F. Supp. 2d 944; 2011 WL 6888795; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150120
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 12(c) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 10) C.N. CLEVERT, JR., Chief Judge. Daniel R. Roath and Mary A. Roath (“Roaths”) brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), to recover costs for property damage. The United States seeks judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.