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. Pollette”
United States v. Cudell Watkinspublic domain
POLITZ, Circuit Judge: Convicted of robbery of postal clerks and postal customers, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2114, 2111 and 7, Cudell Watkins appeals, arguing that he was deprived of a fair trial because an in-court identification was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive showup at the crime scene. Finding the assigned error harmless, we affirm
Batchelor v. United Statespublic domain
Reed, Justice (Bet.), sitting by designation, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an employer-removal case in which the plaintiff is suing for back pay as a result of an alleged unlawful discharge from his government position. Both parties have moved for summary judgment. For a number of years prior to 1961, the plaintiff was employed by the United States Department of the In
United States v. Bridgeport Towing Line, Inc.public domain
THOMAS, District Judge. This is an action to procure a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove a certain obstruction existing in the 12-foot anchorage basin near Yellow mill pond in Bridgeport. Prom the stipulated facts it appears that on March 4, 1925, the canal boat Marion, the property of one Stephen J. Horkay, was beached on the flats west of the main channel and about 800 feet southerly of the Bridgeport inne
India Paint and Lacquer Company, hereinafter referred to as "India," sued United Steel Products Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "United," to recover the value of certain paint or baking enamel sold and delivered to United. By its amended cross-complaint United sought damages from India for its losses (1) due to sticky paint, and (2) for losses occasioned by flash fires in its baking oven, due to allegedly defective paint sold by India to it. United based its right to recover u
Hadley Pollett, LLC v. Yun Zhupublic domain
KerN, Leila R., J. INTRODUCTION This action arises from an alleged conspiracy to defraud the plaintiffs, Hadley Pollett, and Hadley Pollett, LLC. The plaintiffs aver that the defendants conspired to inter alia, convert their property and steal their trade secrets. Before this court is the defendant’s Zhaoheng Holdings, Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, that motion will be DEN
William Pollett v. Rinker Materials Corporationpublic domain
477 F.3d 376 William POLLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.RINKER MATERIALS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 05-6459. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Submitted: September 22, 2006. Decided and Filed: February 13, 2007. ON BRIEF: Louis P. Winner, Seiller Handmaker, Louisville, Ke
MacHado v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commissionpublic domain
BENTON, C.J. Ricardo Machado appeals an order ruling his appeal from an appeals referee to the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) untimely, and dismissing the administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction on that basis, so letting stand the denial of his claim for benefits. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Section 443.151(4)(b)5., Florida Statutes (2010), provides that an appeals refe
LAVEA v. Woodardpublic domain
555 F.Supp.2d 1036 (2008) Titi LAVE A, Petitioner, v. WOODARD, warden, Respondent. No. C 06-2123 MHP (pr). United States District Court, N.D. California. April 9, 2008. *1037 Titi Lavea, Delano, CA, pro se. Pamela K. Critchfield, California State Attorney General's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Svoboda v. Bank of America, N.A.public domain
*663 ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DAVID ALAN EZRA, Senior District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Defendants Bank of America, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and ReconTrust Company, N.A. (collectivel
Wilson v. Bridge Overlay Systems, Inc.public domain
*563OPINION & ORDER Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Court Judge I. INTRODUCTION Administrator and Trustees of‘the Ohio Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Plan, the Ohio Operating Engineers Pension Fund, the Ohio Operating Engineers Apprenticeship Fund, and the Ohio Operating Engineers Safety & Educa
Pollett v. Rinker Materialspublic domain
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0061p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Pla
Levels v. Merlinopublic domain
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BARBARA M.G. LYNN, District Judge. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated August 1, 2013, *711the Cour
Miller v. Citimortgage, Inc.public domain
ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge. Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”), filed on January 17, 2013 [Dkt. No. 26]. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan, who entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on April 26, 2013 [Dkt. No. 35], recommen
Coleman v. Bank of New York Mellonpublic domain
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BARBARA M.G. LYNN, District Judge. After reviewing the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and conducting a de novo review of those parts of the Findings and Conclusions to which objections have been made, I am of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magist
Hurd v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, LPpublic domain
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BARBARA M.G. LYNN, District Judge. The Court has under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge on Bank of America, NA., Successor by Merger to BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Petition, filed August 19, 2
People v. Graypublic domain
OPINION OF THE COURT Albert Tomei, J. It is alleged that defendant Latanya Gray, a New York City *15police officer, acting in concert with codefendants Marion Kennedy and Andrew Johnson, solicited and received the sum of $3,000 in exchange for the promise of rescinding an assault report made by Gray, which led to the arrest of the complainant, Daniel L
People v. Collinspublic domain
PRESIDING JUSTICE MANNING delivered the opinion of the court: The defendants, Jeffrey Collins (Collins) and Samuel Hayes (Hayes), were jointly indicted for the August 4, 1982, murder of Eddie McKeever (McKeever). Prior to trial, both defendants requested severance on the basis of antagonistic defenses and other forms of prejudice. Both motions were denied after a ruling
McCarthy v. Pacific Loan, Inc.public domain
61 B.R. 288 (1986) Michael F. McCARTHY and American Resources, Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC LOAN, INC., and Thrift Guaranty Corporation, Defendants. PACIFIC LOAN, INC., and Thrift Guaranty Corporation of Hawaii, Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. Michael F. McCARTHY, American Resources, Ltd., Curtis J. Bernhardt, Carl J. Bernhardt, Robert L. Hofmann, Harold T. Okahara, Andrew F. Pollett, James M. Seegraves, Laura L.M. Wong, Daniel
Chief Justice JEFFERSON, joined by Justice GREEN, concurring in part and dissenting in part. The Board imposed a civil penalty against Tyndale for illegally issuing thirty-*662four degrees. Tyndale chose not to appeal that administrative penalty or the Board’s findings. Instead, HEB Ministries and two unrelated entities
Goad v. Andersonpublic domain
ORDER OF DISMISSAL DAUGHERTY, District Judge. Luther J. Goad and Plutarcho C. Hill have filed herein their Joint Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus. It appears therefrom that the Petitioners are confined in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma by virtue of a judgment of commitment imposed by the District Court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma. In late 1947 Petitioners were charged in that C