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. Hackney”
United States v. Hackneypublic domain
Case: 25-10690 Document: 81-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED
United States v. Hackneypublic domain
961 F.2d 1582 U.S.v.Hackney* NO. 91-7400 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Apr 30, 1992 1 Appeal From: N.D.Ala. 2
United States v. Hackneypublic domain
742 F.2d 1457 U.S.v.Hackney 84-1203 United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. 8/24/84 1 E.D.Mich. APPEAL DISMISSED
Hackney v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Hackney v. Woodspublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Four Strong/Hackney v. United Statespublic domain
OPINION BRUGGINK, Judge. In this action, plaintiff, a joint venture, pleads that its contract with the government was allegedly breached when the government did not pay the joint venture in accordance with the terms of the contract. Pending are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The motions are fully briefed. Oral argument was held on May 21, 2002. For the reasons stated below, defenda
Hackney v. Allmed Healthcare Mgmt. Inc.public domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Hackney v. Laflerpublic domain
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Hackney v. Laflerpublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Hackney v. Laflerpublic domain
Petition for rehearing denied. Former decision, 562 U.S. 1142, 131 S. Ct. 910, 178 L. Ed. 2d 761, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 122.
Four Strong/Hackney, J.V. v. United Statespublic domain
JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36
Hackney v. Turnerpublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Hackney v. Turnerpublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
State v. Hackneypublic domain
[Cite as State v. Hackney, 2021-Ohio-2064.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-20-1193 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202001060 v. Rhonda Hackney DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant
Hackney v. United Statespublic domain
Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
Hackney v. Statepublic domain
Barbera, C.J. For many of us, the rapid advancement of technology has relegated the ordinary postal system-colloquially referred to as "snail mail"-to an option of last resort. For others, it is not entirely a thing of the past. The physical mail delivery system provides an important avenue of access to the courts for those who do not or cannot, for one reason or another, use electronic
Hackney v. Armontroutpublic domain
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Hackney v. United Statespublic domain
389 A.2d 1336 (1978) Hubert A. HACKNEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. No. 10048. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued September 23, 1977. Decided July 3, 1978. Rehearing En Banc Denied September 19, 1978. *1338 Robert L. Weinberg, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, with
Hackney v. Armontroutpublic domain
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
539 U.S. 949 Hackneyv.Turner, Superintendent, South Mississippi Correctional Facility. No. 02-10518. Supreme Court of United States. June 23, 2003. 1 Appeal from the C. A. 5th Cir. 2