{"count":16987,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xNi45OTMwNyZzPTk0NzM2MDQmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wOS0yOSZwPTI%3D&q=ABSTRACTS+AND+SUMMARIES+SCOPE+AND+APPLICABILITY&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2618281/abstracts-of-oklahoma-inc-v-payne-county-title-co/","attorney":"C. Wayne Litchfield, Litchfield & Patterson, Oklahoma City, Reid K. Mayfield, Ato-ka, for appellant., Tim W. Green, Robert J. Turner, Turner, Turner & Braun, Oklahoma City, for appel-lee and cross-appellant Abstracts of Oklahoma, Inc., Linda L. Gray, Jim McGoodwin, Oklahoma City, for intervenor/appellee and cross-appellant Scott.","caseName":"Abstracts of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Payne County Title Co.","caseNameFull":"ABSTRACTS OF OKLAHOMA, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. PAYNE COUNTY TITLE COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Clifton H. Scott, State Auditor and Inspector, Intervenor/Appellee/Cross-Appellant","citation":["825 P.2d 1334","63 O.B.A.J. 356","1992 OK 13","1992 Okla. LEXIS 14","1992 WL 16338"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":2618281,"court":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla.","court_id":"okla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1992-02-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"71111","docket_id":333794,"judge":"Simms, Hodges, Lavender, Doolin, Hargrave, Wilson, Kauger, Summers, Opala","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:24:09.507798Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T08:35:08.556241Z","score":{"bm25":40.616203}},"neutralCite":"1992 OK 13","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1165568,1180965,1201074,2613769],"download_url":null,"id":2618281,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T21:17:14.174499Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T11:53:03.031306Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8c5f60dd4f72b5f6c610ba6c2a8dbeffa5fd2f74","snippet":"\n825 P.2d 1334 (1992)\nABSTRACTS OF OKLAHOMA, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant,\nv.\nPAYNE COUNTY TITLE COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,\nClifton H. Scott, State Auditor and Inspector, Intervenor/Appellee/Cross-Appellant.\nNo. 71111.\nSupreme Court of Oklahoma.\nFebruary 4, 1992.\nC. Wayne Litchfield, Litchfield & Patterson, Oklahoma City, Reid K. Mayfield, Atoka, fo","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2618281],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2353756/trilogy-communications-inc-v-comm-scope-co/","attorney":"Karl S. Sawyer, Jr., Dalbert U. Shefte, Charlotte, N.C., Joseph V. Colaianni, Pen-nie & Edmonds, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff., John J. Barnhardt, James D. Myers, Dickson M. Lupo, Bell, Seltzer, Park & Gibson, Charlotte, N.C., for defendants.","caseName":"Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Comm Scope Co.","caseNameFull":"TRILOGY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. COMM SCOPE COMPANY, M/A-Com, Inc., M/A-Com Cable Home Communications Corp. and General Instrument Corp., Defendants","citation":["754 F. Supp. 468","1990 WL 237344"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":2353756,"court":"District Court, W.D. North Carolina","court_citation_string":"W.D.N.C.","court_id":"ncwd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1990-03-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ST-C-86-139","docket_id":2253785,"judge":"Woodrow Wilson Jones","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:53:48.898720Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:56:27.482130Z","score":{"bm25":39.751823}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1675,"cites":[87557,88599,90131,90288,100120,102153,104131,104802,107160,277508,424765,449355,458968,468863,496303,507348,1326184,2266050],"download_url":null,"id":2353756,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:03:58.463539Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:13:17.567397Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"327ad4018f8ccb8e3ed975bcebc6014a59cbf3c7","snippet":"\n754 F.Supp. 468 (1990)\nTRILOGY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff,\nv.\nCOMM SCOPE COMPANY, M/A-Com, Inc., M/A-Com Cable Home Communications Corp. and General Instrument Corp., Defendants.\nNo. ST-C-86-139.\nUnited States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division.\nMarch 26, 1990.\n*469 *470</","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2353756],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10616847/wicks-v-lovers-lane-market/","attorney":"","caseName":"Wicks v. Lover's Lane Market`","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 2215"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10616847,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"31236","docket_id":70629928,"judge":"Hensal","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-25T14:11:26.065017Z","date_created":"2025-06-25T14:11:25.953371Z","score":{"bm25":23.595867}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 2215","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2739914,3759590,4319895,4355353,4439596,6756083,6758639,6761973,6762889,6763807,6772199,6773631,6774632,6787499,7797477,9803148,9954944],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2025/2025-Ohio-2215.pdf","id":11083435,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/25/wicks_v._lovers_lane_market.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T20:40:55.177663Z","date_created":"2025-06-25T14:11:25.999470Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"cd58824b468d48212a9d9f935724db2188218af6","snippet":"[Cite as Wicks v. Lover's Lane Market`, 2025-Ohio-2215.]\n\n\nSTATE OF OHIO                    )                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n                                 )ss:                      NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT\nCOUNTY OF SUMMIT                 )\n\nRONDA WICKS, Administrator of the                          C.A. No.   31236\nEstate of PARIS D. WICKS II, etc.\n\n        Appellant\n                                                           APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT\n        v.                    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11083435],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"summary judgment, duty to warn, res judicata, negligence per se, gross negligence, respondeat superior, Civ. R 56"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10055411/state-v-daw/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Daw","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10055411,"court":"Supreme Court of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C.","court_id":"nc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-08-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"174PA21","docket_id":69075137,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-08-23T16:07:47.296400Z","date_created":"2024-08-23T16:07:47.256648Z","score":{"bm25":20.540043}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[102101,106507,145795,676988,1200820,1205035,1230014,1230960,1238707,1246387,1246990,1271392,1275285,1287596,1305197,1312007,1312970,1313979,1322235,1327821,1329211,1330921,1334534,1348798,1356037,1370266,1374993,1374996,1376798,1387905,1390451,1390962,1392087,1406986,1424569,1478341,1789045,2823152,2829616,3643081,3643721,3644194,3648077,3648376,3651699,3652029,3652596,3653176,3656002,3658836,3660255,3661839,3664794,3665128,3667113,3667670,3674667,4251425,4274613,4426340,5519130,6333584,6695038,6701184,6701607,6703305,6720651,6722557,6722705,6723440,6755129,6755986,8901476,8903528,8909311,9425260,9426610,9428825,9432491,9432802,9432849,9433921,9561188,9583005,9597546,9621646,9799913,9844466,9849843,9853236,9856238,9886300],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=43926","id":10522011,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/08/23/state_v._daw.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T20:03:50.023832Z","date_created":"2024-08-23T16:07:47.258415Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"252050c2ad6c949b8122fb05a061756018a08770","snippet":"               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                    No. 174PA21\n\n                                Filed 23 August 2024\n\nSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n              v.\nPHILLIP BRANDON DAW\n\n\n      On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision\n\nof the Court of Appeals, 277 N.C. App. 240 (2021), affirming an order entered 15 June\n\n2020 by Judge Craig Croom in Superior Court, Wake County, summarily denying\n\ndefendant’s application for wr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10522011],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Whether Chapter 17 of the General Statutes requires summary denial of an application to prosecute the writ of habeas corpus when the applicant is detained by virtue of a final judgment of a competent court of criminal jurisdiction."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7329532/aztec-abstract-title-ins-inc-v-maxum-specialty-grp/","attorney":"*1276David M. Houliston, The Law Offices of David M. Houliston, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff., Jennifer A. Noya, Alex Cameron Walker, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants.","caseName":"Aztec Abstract & Title Ins., Inc. v. Maxum Specialty Grp.","caseNameFull":"AZTEC ABSTRACT & TITLE INSURANCE, INC., a New Mexico Corporation v. MAXUM SPECIALTY GROUP & Maxum Indemnity Company","citation":["302 F. Supp. 3d 1274"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":7329532,"court":"District Court, D. New Mexico","court_citation_string":"D.N.M.","court_id":"nmd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-02-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. No. 16–103 KG/KBM","docket_id":64318016,"judge":"Gonzales","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:39:05.348100Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T05:29:28.830583Z","score":{"bm25":20.055992}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7247448,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:44:48.019597Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T05:29:28.840344Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nKENNETH J. GONZALES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\nThis matter comes before the Court upon Maxum's Memorandum Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion for Summary Judgment), filed January 11, 2017. (Doc. 34). Plaintiff filed a response on February 3, 2017, and Defendant Maxum Indemnity Company (Maxum)1 filed a reply on February 16, 2017. (Docs. 37 and 38). Having considered the Motion for Summary Judgment, the","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7247448],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9353269/tac-stafford/","attorney":"","caseName":"TAC Stafford","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9353269,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-04-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-229","docket_id":66670494,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T00:54:38.024219Z","date_created":"2022-12-20T14:14:04.603815Z","score":{"bm25":19.494194}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1258563,1340927,1359871,1379276,2506881],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=40968","id":9348741,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/04/05/tac_stafford.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:35:47.688977Z","date_created":"2022-12-20T14:14:04.606393Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"55a288d08096b46f59a389b5f0b581063e132917","snippet":"                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                      2022-NCCOA-217\n\n                                       No. COA21-229\n\n                                      Filed 5 April 2022\n\n     Iredell County, No. 19 CVS 280\n\n     TAC STAFFORD, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,\n\n                 v.\n\n     TOWN OF MOORESVILLE, a North Carolina body politic and corporate, Defendant.\n\n\n           Appeal by defendant from orders entered ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9348741],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"summary judgment development approvals off-site improvements municipal authority statutory construction attorneys' fees reimbursement exaction mandamus mootness"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4751652/the-edgewater-on-broad-creek-owners-association-v-ephesian-ventures-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"The Edgewater on Broad Creek Owners Association v. Ephesian Ventures, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4751652,"court":"Court of Appeals of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"scctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-05-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2016-001789","docket_id":17130980,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-03T15:10:22.838946Z","date_created":"2020-05-06T14:11:38.728612Z","score":{"bm25":19.051548}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1218785,1266105,1317221,1324050,1330196,1342533,1367254],"download_url":"http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5724.pdf","id":4531999,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/05/06/the_edgewater_on_broad_creek_owners_association_v._ephesian_ventures_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:57:25.169639Z","date_created":"2020-05-06T14:11:38.732545Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5a9740e7f9da6cbf56b99aa1ea7a1596110bc47d","snippet":"       THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n           In The Court of Appeals\n\nThe Edgewater on Broad Creek Owners Association, Inc.\nand the Council of Co-owners of the Edgewater on Broad\nCreek Horizontal Property Regime Phase I, Plaintiffs,\n\nOf which The Edgewater on Broad Creek Owners\nAssociation, Inc. is Respondent,\n\nv.\n\nEphesian Ventures, LLC, Appellant.\n\nAppellate Case No. 2016-001789\n\n\n\n           Appeal From Beaufort County\n        Marvin H. Dukes, III, Master-In-Equity\n\n\n                 Opinion","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4531999],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"In this civil matter, Ephesian Ventures, LLC (Ephesian) appeals the master in-equity's order granting partial summary judgment to The Edgewater on Broad Creek Owners Association, Inc. (the Association). We affirm."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6460565/tac-stafford/","attorney":"","caseName":"TAC Stafford","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6460565,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-04-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-229","docket_id":63245564,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:45:20.932580Z","date_created":"2022-04-19T12:06:40.341193Z","score":{"bm25":18.985521}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=40968","id":6332676,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"bin/2022/04/05/tac_stafford.bin","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T19:26:57.157886Z","date_created":"2022-04-19T12:06:40.343623Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"40a0e8ff100794610cc70b012ac5223bc050071a","snippet":"                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                      2022-NCCOA-217\n\n                                       No. COA21-229\n\n                                      Filed 5 April 2022\n\n     Iredell County, No. 19 CVS 280\n\n     TAC STAFFORD, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,\n\n                 v.\n\n     TOWN OF MOORESVILLE, a North Carolina body politic and corporate, Defendant.\n\n\n           Appeal by defendant from orders entered ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6332676],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"summary judgment development approvals off-site improvements municipal authority statutory construction attorneys' fees reimbursement exaction mandamus mootness"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9880220/bailey-v-city-of-new-york/","attorney":"","caseName":"Bailey v. City of New York","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 03156"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9880220,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-06-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 718002/21","docket_id":68887638,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-21T17:43:11.131444Z","date_created":"2024-06-26T17:12:46.894813Z","score":{"bm25":18.317734}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2123647,2797506,4165163,5532214,5727713,5962528,6003744,6091271,8405614,9297529,9371332,9371337,9374350,9417228,9417260,9893042],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_03156.htm","id":10346830,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/06/12/bailey_v._city_of_new_york.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-01T18:21:49.768133Z","date_created":"2024-06-26T17:12:46.905261Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d07f5eaa61ad929a44a199f9ef221cc549547a42","snippet":"\n\nBailey v City of New York (2024 NY Slip Op 03156)\n\n\n\n\n\nBailey v City of New York\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 03156\n\n\nDecided on June 12, 2024\n\n\nAppellate Division, Second Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 43","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10346830],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4382283/michael-g-v-stock-j/","attorney":"John E. Hilser, Philadelphia, for appellant., Michael P. Coughlin, Blue Bell, for Commonwealth Land Title Insurance, appellee.","caseName":"Michael, G. v. Stock, J.","caseNameFull":"George E. MICHAEL v. Judith STOCK; Judith Stock v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and Edward J. Morris, Esquire; George E. Michael v. Tohickon Abstract Company. Appeal Of: Judith Stock","citation":["162 A.3d 465"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":4382283,"court":"Superior Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa. Super. Ct.","court_id":"pasuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-04-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Michael, G. v. Stock, J. No. 1229 EDA 2016","docket_id":4671261,"judge":"Olson, Solano, Fitzgerald","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:29:09.085164Z","date_created":"2017-04-11T19:13:50.350227Z","score":{"bm25":18.217031}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1551279,1888958,1942650,1946730,1998550,2166551,2443414,3581260,3861245],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-S84018-16o - 10306054516888157.pdf","id":4159536,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/04/11/michael_g._v._stock_j..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:39:01.707526Z","date_created":"2017-04-11T19:13:50.359348Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5e574ddc424167a612e40b4153ed0df6ed1fd0b4","snippet":"\n\n\n  OPINION BY\n \n\n  SOLANO, J.:\n \n\n  Appellant Judith Stock appeals from the order denying her motion for partial summary judgment and granting a cross-motion for summary judgment by Appellee Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Land Title”). For the reasons that follow, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.\n \n\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4159536],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6469963/metropolitan-government-of-nashville-and-davidson-county-v-tennessee/","attorney":"","caseName":"Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Tennessee Department of Education","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6469963,"court":"Tennessee Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Tenn.","court_id":"tenn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-05-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2020-00683-SC-R11-CV","docket_id":63321205,"judge":"Chief Justice Roger A. Page","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:47:41.374820Z","date_created":"2022-05-18T22:10:19.993278Z","score":{"bm25":17.882568}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[757628,1060437,1506501,1636834,1638395,1670616,1734324,1766381,2431277,2656936,2814325,3890914,3892680,3895724,4376567,5044860,5054722,5284212,5284252,6108565,6454542,8296312,8297574,8302328,9426170,9432577,9526583,9717975,9776934],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/metro.government.opn_.pdf","id":6342074,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/05/18/metropolitan_government_of_nashville_and_davidson_county_v._tennessee_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T21:04:42.077651Z","date_created":"2022-05-18T22:10:20.045124Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d6acaef9183e311a7306638e148e40e229555786","snippet":"                                                                                                         05/18/2022\n                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE\n                               AT NASHVILLE\n                                   February 24, 2022 Session1\n\n METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON\nCOUNTY, ET AL. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ET AL.\n\n                      Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals\n                           Chancery Court ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6342074],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This case is before us on an interlocutory appeal limited to a single claim: Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the Tennessee Education Savings Account Pilot Program (the \"ESA Act\" or the \"Act\"), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49-6-2601 to -2612, under article XI, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution (the \"Home Rule Amendment\" or the \"Amendment\"). The trial court held that Plaintiffs had standing to pursue this claim and denied Defendants' motions to dismiss on that basis. The court held that the ESA Act is unconstitutional under the Home Rule Amendment and granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on this claim. The trial court then sua sponte granted Defendants an interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals granted their application for an interlocutory appeal by permission pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment with respect to the issue of standing and the issue of the constitutionality of the ESA Act under the Home Rule Amendment. We hold that Plaintiffs have standing to bring their Home Rule Amendment claim and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to that issue. However, we hold that the ESA Act does not implicate the Home Rule Amendment such that the Act is not rendered unconstitutional by the Amendment, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to that issue. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court with respect to Plaintiffs' claim under the Home Rule Amendment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment dismissing that claim, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, and for consideration of Plaintiffs' remaining claims."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6242630/billingsley-v-farmers-alliance-mut-ins-co/","attorney":"FILED: JUNE 18, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 5, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied September 25, 2018","caseName":"Billingsley v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co.","caseNameFull":"David M. BILLINGSLEY v. FARMERS ALLIANCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY","citation":["555 S.W.3d 1"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6242630,"court":"Missouri Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Mo. Ct. App.","court_id":"moctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-06-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SD 35102","docket_id":62618372,"judge":"Bates, Rahmeyer, Scott","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:46:32.788351Z","date_created":"2022-01-21T18:16:10.891079Z","score":{"bm25":17.855453}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6109714,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:31:40.105663Z","date_created":"2022-01-21T18:16:10.917946Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nAppellant Billingsley challenges (1) an adverse summary judgment on his petition to collect insurance or recover premiums after a fire loss, and (2) respondent Farmers' counterclaim judgment against him for prima facie tort based on Billingsley's complaint to Missouri's Department of Insurance. We affirm the former and reverse the latter.\nBackground\nIn late 1983, Billing","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6109714],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4528076/enervest-operating-llc-v-jsmb0912-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Enervest Operating, L.L.C v. JSMB0912, L.L.C.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2018 Ohio 3322"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4528076,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-08-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2016-P-0080","docket_id":7692377,"judge":"O'Toole","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:10:09.300736Z","date_created":"2018-08-20T15:16:21.142759Z","score":{"bm25":17.741776}},"neutralCite":"2018 Ohio 3322","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2700566,3696540,3701273,3705651,3708407,3729563,3755759,3784494,4186718,6754418,6757038,6757207,6761850,6766053,6767165,6777507,9425401,9430599,11147573,11150041],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2018/2018-Ohio-3322.pdf","id":4305329,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/08/20/enervest_operating_l.l.c_v._jsmb0912_l.l.c..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T02:20:47.463637Z","date_created":"2018-08-20T15:16:21.158430Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"66c45455a0baf36bf66b5aa12061a6df0905958d","snippet":"[Cite as Enervest Operating, L.L.C v. JSMB0912, L.L.C., 2018-Ohio-3322.]\n\n\n                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n                                     PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO\n\n\n ENERVEST OPERATING, L.L.C.,                            :          OPINION\n\n                  Plaintiff,                            :\n                                                                   CASE NO. 2016-P-0080\n BRAD CROMES, PORTAGE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4305329],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REAL PROPERTY - quiet title indmnification delinquent taxes summary judgment intervention if the effect of a judgment entry is to render all other claims at issue moot, it need not contain Civ.R. 54(B) language to be a final appealable order."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9988102/rosalyn-musker-v-suuchi-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Rosalyn Musker v. Suuchi, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9988102,"court":"New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division","court_citation_string":"N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.","court_id":"njsuperctappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-06-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-0841-23","docket_id":68911463,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-02T22:06:05.730937Z","date_created":"2024-07-02T22:06:05.691599Z","score":{"bm25":17.731672}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1491346,1924919,1931082,2257612,2335680,2337674,2398100,2401862,2769785,3557883,4174245],"download_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a0841-23.pdf","id":10454711,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/06/24/rosalyn_musker_v._suuchi_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:31:49.787120Z","date_created":"2024-07-02T22:06:05.693561Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"693a0ed29daf3d95a19157f24af46a27d8933b69","snippet":"               NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE\n              APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION\n\n                                   SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY\n                                   APPELLATE DIVISION\n                                   DOCKET NO. A-0841-23\n\nROSALYN MUSKER,\n\n     Plaintiff-Appellant,                 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION\n                                                  June 24, 2024\nv.                                           APPELLATE DIVISION\n\n\nSUUCHI, INC., ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10454711],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This interlocutory appeal concerns the interpretation of the Wage Payment Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -4.14, and its application to a defendant employer's commission structure. The motion judge ruled the plaintiff employee's commissions in dispute stemming from the sale of Personal Protection Equipment (\"PPE\") during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic were not \"wages\" covered by the statute and instead fell within the statute's exception for \"supplementary incentives.\" Plaintiff had sought payment of more than $1.3 million in commissions claimed on over $32 million in PPE sales that she helped generate in the three-month period from March 2020 through June 2020. The Supreme Court granted the employee's motion for leave to appeal, remanding the case to this court \"for consideration on the merits, limited to whether the commission structure at issue falls within the Wage Payment Law.\" Under the circumstances presented, the compensation the employee sought for the PPE sales are \"supplementary incentives\" excluded by N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1(c), and not regular commissions within the ordinary scope of her sales compensation plan. The employer's commitment to pay commissions on PPE sales was outside of plaintiff's customary role in selling the company's services and were designed to stimulate the sales of PPE during a time of sudden pandemic-related demand. The court therefore affirms the motion judge's ruling, but, as the judge recognized, subject to plaintiff's non-statutory contractual claims."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8006962/in-re-international-transmission-co/","attorney":"Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC (by Rodger A. Kershner, Jon D. Kreucher, and Miles T. Macik) for the Arlie D. Murdock Revocable Living Trust., Dykema Gossett PLLC (by Albert Ernst, Gary P Gordon, and Shaun M. Johnson) for the International Transmission Company., Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Matthew Schneider, Chief Legal Counsel, and Steven D. Hughey and Lauren D. Donofrio, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Public Service Commission.","caseName":"In re International Transmission Co.","caseNameFull":"In re APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMPANY","citation":["304 Mich. App. 561","847 N.W.2d 684"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":8006962,"court":"Michigan Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Mich. Ct. App.","court_id":"michctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-03-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Docket No. 317798","docket_id":65102472,"judge":"Boonstra, Sawyer, Servitto","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-11T01:09:26.047436Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T00:42:02.508954Z","score":{"bm25":17.618082}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7961702,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T14:40:38.092357Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T00:42:02.516236Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nBOONSTRA, J.\nIntervenor-Appellant Arlie D. Murdock Revocable Living Trust (Murdock Trust) appeals as of right the July 29, 2013 order of the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) approving petitionerappellee International Transmission Company’s (ITC) proposed modification of an approved route over Murdock Trust’s land to accommodate a transmission line. We affirm.\nI. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7961702],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5285232/carroll-electric-cooperative-corp-v-lambert/","attorney":"Richard L. Schnake, Springfield, MO, for Appellant., Donald L. Cupps, Cassville, MO, for Respondents Mary and Ralph Lambert, William Darch, Frances Bon Tempo, First National Bank of Berryville, and Ellis, Cupps & Cole., Robert Denlow, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent TAP Corp., Inc., Security Abstract & Title Co. and Barry County Collector acting pro se.","caseName":"Carroll Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Lambert","caseNameFull":"CARROLL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION v. Mary E. LAMBERT, and Ralph F. Lambert, and First National Bank of Berryville, and Ellis, Cupps & Cole, Trustee, and William Darch, and Frances Bon Tempo, and TAP Corporation, and Security Abstract & Title Co., Trustee for First National Bank of Berryville, and Barry County Collector, Defendants-Respondents","citation":["403 S.W.3d 637","2012 WL 4470236","2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1209"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5285232,"court":"Missouri Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Mo. Ct. App.","court_id":"moctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-09-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Nos. SD 31416, SD 31589","docket_id":60618318,"judge":"Bates, Burrell, Rahmeyer","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:32:25.187715Z","date_created":"2021-10-02T17:52:13.232804Z","score":{"bm25":17.498947}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5113567,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T23:37:26.250458Z","date_created":"2021-10-02T17:52:13.250594Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJEFFREY W. BATES, J.\nThis is a condemnation case. Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation (Carroll Electric) filed a petition to condemn a right-of-way for an electric transmission and distribution line across properties owned by two couples: Ralph and Mary Lambert; and William Darch and his wife, Frances Bon Tempo (collectively, Landowners).1 After Carroll Electric presented evidence at a heari","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5113567],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4755450/ideal-innovations-inc-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"Ideal Innovations, Inc. v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4755450,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-05-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17-889","docket_id":17182835,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:15:35.390331Z","date_created":"2020-05-21T16:02:09.630922Z","score":{"bm25":17.221746}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[677478,779249],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv0889-113-0","id":4535797,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/05/21/ideal_innovations_inc._v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:00:07.835079Z","date_created":"2020-05-21T16:02:10.711656Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ac04c174b4e00562126d5dcaf7928133102f5a47","snippet":"            In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n                                          No. 17-889C\n                                (Filed Under Seal: May 12, 2020)\n                           (Reissued For Publication: May 21, 2020) 1\n\n*******************************************\n                                          *\nIDEAL INNOVATIONS, INC.,                  *\nTHE RIGHT PROBLEM, LLC, and,              *\nROBERT KOCHER,                            * Motion to Dismiss, Summary Judgme","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4535797],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED ORDER denying Motion for Summary Judgment Status Conference set for 5/28/2020 at 11:00 AM in Chambers (Telephonic) before Senior Judge Edward J. Damich. Signed by Senior Judge Edward J. Damich. (lp1) Service on parties made."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8283242/otto-ex-rel-noble-v-inn-at-watervale-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Otto ex rel. Noble v. Inn at Watervale, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Kerri Hunter OTTO, Next Friend of Bailey Ann Marie Noble, Minor v. INN AT WATERVALE, INC.","citation":["909 N.W.2d 265","501 Mich. 1044"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8283242,"court":"Michigan Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Mich.","court_id":"mich","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-04-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC: 155380; COA: 330214","docket_id":65461391,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:08:47.854871Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T10:16:10.204641Z","score":{"bm25":17.127478}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8249264,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T01:50:27.312854Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T10:16:10.212746Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOn order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted, and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we REVERSE the January 17, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REINSTATE the September 21, 2015 summary disposition order of the Benzie Circuit Court. The circuit court correctly ruled that the recreational land use act (RUA), MCL 324.73301, applies to this case. That statute provides in relevant part that","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8249264],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2673292/canvs-corporation-v-united-states/","attorney":"Joseph J. Zito, Washington, DC, for plaintiff., John A. Hudalla, with whom were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, and John Fargo, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. Lindsay K. Eastman, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, of counsel., RCFC 54(b); Reconsideration; Partial Summary Judgment; Patent; Invalid; Anticipation; 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); Prior Art ■","caseName":"Canvs Corporation v. United States","caseNameFull":"CANVS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant","citation":["116 Fed. Cl. 294","2014 U.S. Claims LEXIS 153","2014 WL 1410891"],"citeCount":10,"cluster_id":2673292,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-04-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1:10-cv-00540","docket_id":262680,"judge":"Patricia E. Campbell-Smith","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:43:52.758707Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T08:00:25.137382Z","score":{"bm25":17.061047}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118019,146564,209556,209714,571524,694395,756650,773467,774983,779170,782078,787934],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv0540-88-0","id":2673292,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/04/14/canvs_corporation_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T21:52:12.002193Z","date_created":"2014-05-10T03:12:52.610096Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"192e2915b12e22f744e1c638e8dfe5f1f44d5c53","snippet":"\n\n\n\n   OPINION AND ORDER\n  \n\n\n  CAMPBELL-SMITH, Chief Judge.\n \n\n  CANVS Corporation (CANVS or plaintiff) brought a patent infringement action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) (2006), against the United States acting through the Department of the Army (government or defendant). Compl., Aug. 11, 2010, ECF No. 1. CANVS a","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2673292],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9473604/br-v-west-virginia-department-of-health-and-human-resources-bureau-for/","attorney":"","caseName":"B.R. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau for Children and Families, and Child Protective Services","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9473604,"court":"Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia","court_citation_string":"","court_id":"wvactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-ica-202","docket_id":68236941,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:24:56.949707Z","date_created":"2024-02-08T22:18:52.456492Z","score":{"bm25":16.99307}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1222722,1236871,1327873,1374249,4241108],"download_url":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2024-02/22-ICA-202_MD.pdf","id":9931442,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/02/08/b.r._v._west_virginia_department_of_health_and_human_resources_bureau_for.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:25:47.543397Z","date_created":"2024-02-08T22:18:52.458850Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c8164d3a299982c6b9fc39ef5a8c9b3c41c49120","snippet":"       IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA\n\n                                                                                FILED\nB.R.,                                                                      February 8, 2024\nPlaintiff Below, Petitioner                                                  C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK\n                                                                          INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS\n                                                        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9931442],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Tort, Contract, and Real Property","syllabus":""}]}