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 “United States v. Darst”
United States v. Darstpublic domain
726 F.Supp. 286 (1989) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Billy J. DARST, Defendant. No. 89-10041-01. United States District Court, D. Kansas. November 15, 1989. Billy Joe Darst, Little River, Kan., pro se. Thomas D. Arnhold, Hutchinson, Kan. (on appeal) for defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CROW, District Judge. The case com
Darst v. Illinois Farmers Insurancepublic domain
OPINION SULLIVAN, Judge Appellant, Richard L. Darst, United States Bankruptcy Trustee (Trustee), appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Illinois Farmers Insurance Company (Illinois Farmers) upon Bert and Lavonna Sloans’ claims for fraud and breach of an assumed duty to provide accurate information.1 We affirm. On
417 F.3d 898 DARST-WEBBE TENANT ASSOCIATION BOARD, a Missouri non-profit corporation; Housing Comes First, a Missouri non-profit corporation; Peabody Tenant Association, a Missouri non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.ST. LOUIS HOUSING AUTHORITY, a Municipal corporation; Cheryl A. Lovell, in her official capacity as Director of the St. Louis Housing Authority; United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; Mel Martine
MELLOY, Circuit Judge. On remand following partial summary-judgment, a bench trial, and a prior appeal, the distinct court 1 found in favor of the defendants on six claims that relate to alleged discrimination in housing. We affirm. I. Background Plaintiffs-Appellants Darsb-
Darst v. Statepublic domain
ELLINGTON, Presiding Judge. A Gwinnett County jury found Roger Darst guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of four counts of aggravated child molestation, OCGA § 16-6-4 (c). He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain certain records concerning the victims, present expert witness testimony, and object to certain testimony. He also con
Givens v. Darstpublic domain
OPINION ROSS, Judge. Anthony Darst, father, appeals from the district court’s order granting substantial visitation rights to his son’s maternal grandmother, Roxanne Givens, following the murder of the child’s mother. The district court granted Givens visitation every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon and every other weekend extended from Friday evening through Sunday evening. The district court’s visitation or
MELLOY, Circuit Judge. Appellants, Darst-Webbe Tenant Association Board, Peabody Tenant Association, and Housing Comes First, Inc., brought this action against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the St. Louis Housing Authority (“SLHA”). This suit was intended to address grievances arising out of the implementation of revitalization plans for
Insurance Corp. of America v. Darstpublic domain
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Insurance Corp. of America v. Darstpublic domain
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Darst v. BLAIRSTOWN TP. ZONINGpublic domain
982 A.2d 27 (2009) 410 N.J. Super. 314 Carl and Della DARST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BLAIRSTOWN TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Defendant-Respondent. DOCKET NO. A-5501-06T2. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued September 23, 2009. Decided October 27, 2009. *28 Ri
Pre-Award Bid Protest; Corrective Action; 48 C.F.R. § 8.406; Injunctive Relief; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, 10 U.S:C. § 2S04c(e); Organizational Conflicts of Interest; Unequal Treatment. OPINION HORN, J. FINDINGS OF FACT Protestor, PrieewaterhouseCoopers Public Sector,
Darst v. Statepublic domain
816 So.2d 680 (2002) Steven DARST, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Nos. 5D00-2262, 5D00-2459. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. March 28, 2002. *681 James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Linda L. Gaustad, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant/Cross-Appe
Darst, Richard L. v. Interstate Brandspublic domain
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 04-2460 RICHARD L. DARST, as Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of KRZYSZTOF CHALIMONIUK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION and TONIA GORDON, Defendants-Appellees. ____
Darst v. Rhaypublic domain
Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.
512 F.3d 903 (2008) Richard L. DARST, as Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Krzysztof Chalimoniuk, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION and Tonia Gordon, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-2460. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued March 28, 2007. Decided January 11, 2008. *904 Bre
James E. Darst v. Kenneth S. Apfelpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _____________ No. 98-3110EM _____________ James E. Darst, * * Appellant. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. *
Darst-Webbe Tenant Ass'n v. ST. LOUIS HOUSINGpublic domain
299 F.Supp.2d 952 (2004) DARST-WEBBE TENANT ASSOCIATION BOARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ST. LOUIS HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants. No. 4:99CV354SNL. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. January 6, 2004. *953 *954 Ann B. Lever, Daniel K. Glazier, Laura V. Brink, Su
Nutech Laundry & Textile, Inc. v. United Statespublic domain
ORDER REMANDING TO AGENCY FIRESTONE, Judge. This case concerns a pre-award bid protest filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4). The plaintiff, Nutech Laundry & Textile, Inc. (“Nutech”), objects to the denial of award and withdrawal of Request for Proposal (“RFP” or “solicitation”) No. CC-02-07. The RFP was for laundry services at the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center for the Department of Health and Hu
James E. Darst v. Social Security Administrationpublic domain
STROM, District Judge. James Darst appeals from the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment in favor of the Social Security Administration on is Privacy Act claim. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the decision of the district court. I.
Roger Darst v. Statepublic domain
FIRST DIVISION PHIPPS, C. J., ELLINGTON, P. J., and BRANCH, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/ July 16