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.
13 opinions for “Robert Junior Wilson and Sharon Kay Wilson”
People v. Silveria and Travispublic domain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL TODD SILVERIA and JOHN RAYMOND TRAVIS, Defendants and Appellants. S062417 Santa Clara County Superior Court 155731 August 13, 2020 Justice Groban authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Jus
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
ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV
ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV
in the Interest of A.G. and F.G., Childrenpublic domain
ACCEPTED 01-15-00571-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/24/2015 9:45:33 PM CHRIST
In re City of Detroitpublic domain
Supplemental Opinion Regarding Plan Conñrmation, Approving Settlements, and Approving Exit Financing STEVEN W. RHODES, Bankruptcy Judge. Table of Contents I. Introduction.159 II. The Plan CONFIRMATION Prooess. i — 1 ZD i — I A. The City’s Plans of Adjustment. i — 1 <
In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigationpublic domain
671 F.Supp.2d 467 (2009) In re INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION. Master File No. 21 MC 92. United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 5, 2009. *469 Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq., Rebecca M. Katz, Esq., Christian Siebott, Esq., Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Robert A. Wallner, Esq., Ariana J. Tadler, Esq., Peter G.A. Safirste
THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Hearing: Mailed: March 7, 2013 June 18, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Philip Gover,
Strauss v. Hortonpublic domain
46 Cal.4th 364 (2009) ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___ ___ P.3d ___ KAREN L. STRAUSS et al., Petitioners, v. MARK B. HORTON, as State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., et al., Respondents; DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH et al., Interveners. ROBIN TYLER et al., Petitioners, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Respondents; DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH et al., Interveners. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO e
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.public domain
449 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 99-2496(GK). United States Distri
In Re Enron Corp. Securitiespublic domain
586 F.Supp.2d 732 (2008) In re ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE & "ERISA" LITIGATION. Mark Newby, et al., Plaintiffs v. Enron Corporation, et al., Defendants. No. MDL-1446. Civ.A. No. H-01-3624. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. September 8, 2008. *735 Richard J. Zook, Cunningham Darlow e
In Re Silica Products Liability Litigationpublic domain
398 F.Supp.2d 563 (2005) In re SILICA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. No. MDL 1553. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division. June 30, 2005. *564 *565 *566 John R. Fabry, Liaison Counsel, for all plaintiffs. Darrell Lee Barger, Liaiso
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