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. Mull”
United States v. Mullpublic domain
PUBLISHED OPINION OF THE COURT DREW, Chief Judge: Appellant, a medical technician, was tried at a special court-martial composed of military judge alone. In accordance with his pleas, he was found guilty of fraudulent enlistment by falsely representing his preser-vice use of marijuana and heroin; dereliction of duty by willfully failing to properly dispose
United States v. Mullpublic domain
CCA S32367 DAILY JOURNAL Petitions for Grant of Review Filed
Mull v. United Statespublic domain
Petition for writ of cer- tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. Same case below, 365 Fed. Appx. 723.
United States v. Vernard Mullpublic domain
53 F.3d 332NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Vernard MULL, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-5833. United States Court of Appeal
State v. Mullpublic domain
[Cite as State v. Mull, 2025-Ohio-403.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-24-060 Appellee Trial Court No. 2022 CR 0483 v. Jeremy W. Mull DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant
Mull & Mull, PLC v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.public domain
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent Baxter Healthcare Corp. for leave to file Rule 29.6 Corporate Disclosure Statement under seal granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 159 F. 3d 1016.
Mull & Mull, PLC v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.public domain
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent Baxter Healthcare Corp. for leave to file Rule 29.6 Corporate Disclosure Statement under seal granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 159 F. 3d 1016.
Shubert v. Mull (In Re Frey Mechanical Group, Inc.)public domain
446 B.R. 208 (2011) In re FREY MECHANICAL GROUP, INC., Debtor. Christine C. Shubert, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estate of Frey Mechanical Group, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Stanley Mull and Joan W. Mull, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 10-10349-MDC. Adversary No. 10-00159-MDC. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. March 1, 2011. *210
State v. Mullpublic domain
87 Argued and submitted December 22, 2020; conviction on Count 6 reversed, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed July 8, 2021 STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DANIEL CLAYTON MULL, JR., aka Daniel Clayton Mull, Defendant-Appellant. Klamath County Circuit Court
*425Gribbs, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. First, I do not agree with the majority’s suggestion that the panel in Calladine v Hyster Co, 155 Mich App 175; 399 NW2d 404 (1986), read into the statute a meaning not intended by the Legislature. As noted in Calladine, p 181, the Legislature evidently intended the statute to "deal primarily wi
State v. Jovan T. Mullpublic domain
2023 WI 26 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2020AP1362-CR COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Jovan T. Mull, Defendant-Appellant. REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Vargas v. Mullpublic domain
Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-rari denied.
ITT Consumer Financial Corp. v. Mull (In Re Mull)public domain
122 B.R. 763 (1991) In re Ressie D. MULL and Darlene M. Mull, Debtors. ITT CONSUMER FINANCIAL CORP., a corporation d/b/a ITT Financial Services, Plaintiff, v. Ressie D. MULL and Darlene M. Mull, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. BK-90-00849-LN, Adv. No. 90-0181-LN. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma. January 11, 1991. *764
Vargas v. Mullpublic domain
Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-rari denied.
*88 OPINION 1 BRENDAN LINEHAN SHANNON, Bankruptcy Judge. Before the Court are a number of cross-motions for summary judgment on a complaint seeking declaratory relief. These include the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Phase I Issues [Docket No. 161], filed by certain Kansas producers of oil
Lenai Mull v. Motion Picture Industry Healthpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIELLE MULL, appointed No. 20-56315 Guardian Ad Litem for Carson Mull; NORMAN MULL; CARSON MULL, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellees, 2:12-cv-06693- VBF-MAN v. MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY HEALTH OPINION PLAN; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY HEALTH PLAN, D
Turner v. Mullpublic domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 102) and Defendant Chandler’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 104). These motions are fully briefed and ready for disposition. BACKGROUND At all times relevant, Plaintiff Terry M. Turner (“Plaintiff’) w
United States v. Mullingspublic domain
Statement of Reasons Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: Table of Contents I. Introduction................................................................2 A Instant Offense: Bank Fraud............................................2 1. Purchase of Marion Street Property................................. .2
Mull v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mull v. Equitable Life Assurance Societypublic domain
Mat,t.ett, J. In this negligence action, we granted leave to determine whether a front-end loader is a motor vehicle for purposes of the owner’s liability statute, MCL 257.401; MSA 9.2101. The trial court and the Court of Appeals concluded, as a matter of law, that a front-end loader is a motor vehicle. We affirm. i On Sunday, November 15, 1987