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 “United States v. 25-220-04”
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Haneypublic domain
1 Reported in 208 N.W. 17. Action for the recovery of money wherein plaintiff attempted to garnishee the county of Mower upon a judgment against it and in favor of defendant. From an order discharging the garnishment plaintiff appeals. Defendant's judgment against the county of Mower was entered July 13, 1925, for $1,735.37. The garnishment summons was served July 18, 1925, and
State v. Dietrichpublic domain
204 P.3d 748 (2009) 2009-NMCA-031 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tom DIETRICH, Defendant-Appellant. No. 25,220. Court of Appeals of New Mexico. January 8, 2009. Certiorari Denied, No. 31,524, February 17, 2009. *752 Gary K. King, Attorney General, Chris Conlee, Assistant Attor
Dusty Lee Mosley v. the State of Texaspublic domain
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00220-CR ___________________________ DUSTY LEE MOSLEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 16th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F24-1743-362 Before Kerr, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
In Re Robert Edward Battaile v. the State of Texaspublic domain
15-25-00220-CV ACCEPTED 15-25-00142-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS NO. 15-25-00142-CV 12/1/2025 12:00 AM
Flick v. Murdockpublic domain
*863The opinion of the court was delivered by Hopkins, J.: This controversy involves the title and possession of certain real estate. An objection to the introduction of evidence, on the ground that the petition failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was sustained and plaintiffs appeal. The land in controversy
Mr. Justice Thomson delivered the opinion of the court. By this appeal the defendant insurance company seeks to reverse a judgment recovered against it by the plaintiff in the sum of $9,800 in a trial by the court without a jury. The claim sued upon arose from the following facts: The plaintiff was covered by a policy of insuranc