{"count":50359,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xMy43MjA3MTcmcz05NDc2MTEwJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDgtMjQmcD0y&q=ADEQUACY+OF+DAMAGES&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4504620/joseph-clifford-v-gina-raimondo-in-her-capacity-as-governor-of-the-state/","attorney":"\n  For Plaintiffs: Thomas M. Dickinson, Esq., Johnston, Edward C. Roy, Jr., Esq., North Kingstown, Carly Beauvais Iafrate, Esq., Providence, Michael B. Forte, Jr., Esq. Joseph F. Penza, Jr., Esq., Warwick, Thomas R. Landry, Esq., Cranston, Douglas L. Steele, Pro Hac Vice, Lynette J. Labinger, Esq.\n , \n  For Defendants: John A. Tarantino, Esq., Joseph Avanzato, Esq., Patricia K. Rocha, Esq., Providence, Rebecca T. Partington, Esq., Michael W. Field, Esq., Nicole J. Benjamin, Esq.\n ","caseName":"Joseph Clifford v. Gina Raimondo, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Rhode Island Rhode Island Public Employees' Retiree Coalition v. Gina Raimondo, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Rhode Island","caseNameFull":"Joseph CLIFFORD Et Al. v. Gina RAIMONDO, in Her Capacity as Governor of the State of Rhode Island, Et Al. Rhode Island Public Employees' Retiree Coalition Et Al. v. Gina Raimondo, in Her Capacity as Governor of the State of Rhode Island, Et Al.","citation":["184 A.3d 673"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4504620,"court":"Supreme Court of Rhode Island","court_citation_string":"R.I.","court_id":"ri","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-05-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"15-379","docket_id":7067958,"judge":"Suttell, Goldberg, Flaherty, Indeglia","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:03:33.567462Z","date_created":"2018-06-06T18:46:06.576221Z","score":{"bm25":26.625042}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109050,110737,118142,203991,219618,318518,325616,402333,408219,442790,601791,703201,755571,788563,799373,1273446,1736898,1892991,1946087,1967178,2062141,2065544,2092168,2189175],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/SupremeOpinions/15-379.pdf","id":4281873,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/06/06/joseph_clifford_v._gina_raimondo_in_her_capacity_as_governor_of_the_state.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:03:48.058933Z","date_created":"2018-06-06T18:46:06.583718Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"818a5ac56216f6ee0aa933b9c3c3ce30d7006dfe","snippet":"\n\n\n  Justice Indeglia, for the Court.\n \n\n\n   \"Economy is the method by which we prepare today to afford the improvements of tomorrow.\"\n  \n\n   1\n  \n\n\n  Rhode Island, unfortunately, failed to prepare for tomorrow. Its problems all came to a breaking point in 2009, at the depth of the recession, at which ti","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4281873],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"In these consolidated matters, the plaintiffs appeal a Superior Court justice's approval of a class action for settlement purposes only. The plaintiffs, all state and municipal employees, alleged that the settlement violated their constitutional rights in denying them their retirement benefits. They contended that the trial justice's certification of the class was improper and that the settlement was not fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Supreme Court first held that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in certifying the class in accordance with Rule 23(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, because the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were all met. Next, the Court determined that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in certifying the class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), because the plaintiffs sought mainly equitable relief, and any money damages would be merely incidental. The Court also held that the trial justice's division of the class into subclasses was not improper. Finally, the Court concluded that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in finding that the settlement was procedurally fair. In addition, the Court affirmed the trial justice's determination that the settlement was substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate, acknowledging that the trial justice conducted an exhaustive review of the factors necessary to ascertain the fairness of the settlement and did not overlook any of the objectors' concerns. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1633872/coalition-for-adequacy-v-chiles/","attorney":"","caseName":"Coalition for Adequacy v. Chiles","caseNameFull":"","citation":["680 So. 2d 400","1996 WL 350161"],"citeCount":77,"cluster_id":1633872,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1996-06-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"85375","docket_id":1201353,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T05:04:20.944949Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T14:58:45.004779Z","score":{"bm25":25.052067}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[105221,106366,880559,1113751,1127805,1130889,1141357,1142975,1145115,1151452,1297774,1304740,1438754,1471279,1473544,1577303,1660691,1677763,1696520,1699402,1783791,1790080,1809757,1817177,1837708,2096010,2136358,2452027,2613339,2615891,3398468],"download_url":null,"id":1633872,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T10:30:29.578485Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:59:04.172137Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f777463ee38ea79c5372d71feaa42f6899f7214b","snippet":"\n680 So.2d 400 (1996)\nCOALITION FOR ADEQUACY AND FAIRNESS IN SCHOOL FUNDING, INC., et al., Appellants,\nv.\nLawton CHILES, Governor of the State of Florida and Presiding Officer of the State Board of Education; Douglas Jamerson, Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida; State Board of Education, a public Florida corporation; Pat Thomas, as President of the Florida Senate; and Bolley L. Johnson, as Speaker of the Florida House of Representat","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1633872],"source":"L","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9473372/steven-serenska-v-wells-fargo-bank-na/","attorney":"","caseName":"Steven Serenska v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9473372,"court":"Supreme Court of Rhode Island","court_citation_string":"R.I.","court_id":"ri","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-229","docket_id":68235030,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:24:54.088745Z","date_created":"2024-02-08T17:11:01.986753Z","score":{"bm25":21.444529}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[531281,1039068,1039112,1964795,2301146,2552646,2716909,2743748,4236823,4401965,4964663],"download_url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/SupremeOpinions/22-229.pdf","id":9931210,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/02/08/steven_serenska_v._wells_fargo_bank_n.a..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:16:34.071042Z","date_created":"2024-02-08T17:11:01.991185Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b34023264aabd5e1036cae4fe99780a727300306","snippet":"                                                   Supreme Court\n\n                                                   No. 2022-229-Appeal.\n                                                   (PC 21-3203)\n\n\n\n      Steven Serenska                :\n\n              v.                     :\n\nWells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.       :\n\n\n        NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision\n        before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers\n        are requested to notify the Opinion Analys","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9931210],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff, Steven Serenska, appealed from a Superior Court order granting motions to dismiss filed by the defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and several other defendants in connection with the adequacy of a notice of default on a mortgage. The operative complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, along with compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the hearing justice erred by misconstruing his argument and by failing to recognize that the mortgage agreement contained an ambiguity. The Supreme Court concluded that the hearing justice correctly determined that there was no ambiguity and that the notice of default strictly complied with the requirements set forth in the mortgage. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9447364/estate-of-coumbassa-v-hickle/","attorney":"","caseName":"Estate of Coumbassa v. Hickle","caseNameFull":"","citation":["230 N.E.3d 61","2023 Ohio 4292"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":9447364,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-11-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22AP-788","docket_id":68040542,"judge":"Beatty Blunt","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:19:59.230736Z","date_created":"2023-11-28T21:10:30.881959Z","score":{"bm25":18.350924}},"neutralCite":"2023 Ohio 4292","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2701099,2706793,3174471,4125896,4221197,4301722,4539980,4544181],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2023/2023-Ohio-4292.pdf","id":9905189,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/11/28/estate_of_coumbassa_v._hickle.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:19:59.241644Z","date_created":"2023-11-28T21:10:30.892585Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"21306ea9a153ef05ca7d64e20c766f93bd08b32f","snippet":"[Cite as Estate of Coumbassa v. Hickle, 2023-Ohio-4292.]\n\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nEstate of Almamy Coumbassa,                         :\nDeceased, by and through\nPoret Millimono, Administrator,                     :\n\n                Plaintiff-Appellant,                :             No. 22AP-788\n                                                              (C.P.C. No. 21CV-005481)\nv.                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9905189],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. Plaintiff failed to file a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F) and therefore did not preserve her right to challenge the adequacy of discovery on appeal. Furthermore, the evidence showed there were no genuine disputes of material fact as to appellant's claims for negligence. The only evidence submitted by appellant purporting to show there was an issue of fact for trial was her own affidavit, which clearly showed she had no first-hand knowledge of the incident giving rise to this case and thus could not serve as evidence showing any genuine issues of material fact were left for trial. Judgment affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2155850/in-re-dalkon-shield-punitive-damages-litigation/","attorney":"Murray J. Janus, Stephen W. Bricker, Bremner, Baber & Janus, Richmond, Va., for plaintiffs., Alexander H. Slaughter, J. Waller Harrison, Barbara Ann Williams, McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, Va., James Dabney Miller, King & Spalding, Washington, D.C., Griffin B. Bell, King & Spalding, Atlanta, Ga., William R. Cogar, Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore, Richmond, Va., for defendants.","caseName":"In Re Dalkon Shield Punitive Damages Litigation","caseNameFull":"In Re DALKON SHIELD PUNITIVE DAMAGES LITIGATION","citation":["613 F. Supp. 1112","2 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 668","1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17681"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":2155850,"court":"District Court, E.D. Virginia","court_citation_string":"E.D. Va.","court_id":"vaed","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1985-07-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. A. 84-0484-R","docket_id":2025962,"judge":"Merhige","lexisCite":"1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17681","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T09:20:18.746738Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T21:20:16.396600Z","score":{"bm25":17.898054}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2223,"cites":[109964,343637],"download_url":null,"id":2155850,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T17:46:31.284115Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:29:02.744040Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8a10ca60fc2d7a079d8149b27956a831635c2117","snippet":"\n613 F.Supp. 1112 (1985)\nIn re DALKON SHIELD PUNITIVE DAMAGES LITIGATION.\nCiv. A. No. 84-0484-R.\nUnited States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.\nJuly 22, 1985.\n*1113 Murray J. Janus, Stephen W. Bricker, Bremner, Baber & Janus, Richmond, Va., for plaintiffs.\nAlexander H. Slaughter, J. Waller Harrison, Barbara Ann","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2155850],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10309962/chambers-v-farmers-ins-of-columbus-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Chambers v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 5"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":10309962,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-01-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"113659","docket_id":69527300,"judge":"Groves","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-08T18:18:10.960921Z","date_created":"2025-01-08T18:18:10.899118Z","score":{"bm25":16.724367}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 5","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103379,308726,620898,685134,2690382,2701920,2704407,2707509,3736917,4030696,4126765,4342046,4384087,4473805,4543932,6758010,6758258,6759826,6760188,6762473,6767228,6777365,8210267],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2025/2025-Ohio-5.pdf","id":10776550,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/01/02/chambers_v._farmers_ins._of_columbus_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T18:59:08.466919Z","date_created":"2025-01-08T18:18:10.913518Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8198013edbf7e0fa41b5fdcf94773c0b21eecf3a","snippet":"[Cite as Chambers v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc., 2025-Ohio-5.]\n\n                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA\n\nRYAN CHAMBERS,                                        :\n\n                Plaintiff-Appellee,                   :\n                                                                     No. 113659\n                v.                                    :\n\nFARMERS INSURANCE O","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10776550],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Class action; certification; abuse of discretion; Civ.R. 23; class definition; adequacy; typicality; commonality; numerosity; predominance; superiority. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee's motion for class certification. The class definition was not overly broad or unascertainable and the Civ.R. 23(A) prerequisites of adequacy, typicality, commonality, and numerosity were established. Moreover, common issues predominate the lawsuit and class action is the superior method of resolution."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10019835/the-people-of-the-state-of-colorado-v-jeffrey-thomas-caime/","attorney":"","caseName":"The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Jeffrey Thomas CAIME","caseNameFull":"","citation":["503 P.3d 940","2021 COA 134"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":10019835,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-11-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals No. 18CA2423","docket_id":68987421,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-29T16:04:00.291263Z","date_created":"2024-07-29T16:04:00.207595Z","score":{"bm25":16.407553}},"neutralCite":"2021 COA 134","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2448890,2533833,2614866,2639555,3148567,4184995,4271642,4452819,4541411,4574578,4585834,4666913,4766406,5150334,5157716,5158393,5165426,5178020,9429310,9534341,9576397,9614543,9787214,9789163],"download_url":"https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/people-v-caime-court-907372673/content","id":10486436,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2021/11/04/the_people_of_the_state_of_colorado_v._jeffrey_thomas_caime.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T07:33:24.807802Z","date_created":"2024-07-29T16:04:00.221649Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9715dcd673bfee7a78942d252c2e796b443af4d3","snippet":"503 P.3d 9402021 COA 134The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Jeffrey Thomas CAIME, Defendant-Appellant.Court of Appeals No. 18CA2423Colorado Court of Appeals, Division IV.Announced November 4, 2021Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Jillian J. Price, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plainti","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10486436],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10357460/appeal-of-doe-bd-of-med/","attorney":"","caseName":"Appeal of Doe (Bd. of Med.)","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 N.H. 13"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":10357460,"court":"Supreme Court of New Hampshire","court_citation_string":"N.H.","court_id":"nh","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2023-0637","docket_id":69749711,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-18T13:09:15.732948Z","date_created":"2025-03-18T13:09:15.654038Z","score":{"bm25":14.883223}},"neutralCite":"2025 N.H. 13","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108606,118125,167558,1910369,1944979,3186757,8049151,8049455,8050971,8051959,8052225,8053357,8412129],"download_url":"https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/documents/2025-03/2025013doe.pdf","id":10824048,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/18/appeal_of_doe_bd._of_med..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:48:06.380440Z","date_created":"2025-03-18T13:09:15.666935Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e3ec7de90c609b243211992c72473589e2d2e1e0","snippet":"NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as\nwell as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports.\nReaders are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New\nHampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any\neditorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes\nto press. Errors may be reported by email at the following address:\nreporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10824048],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4343941/raymond-v-board-of-regents-of-the-university-of-minnesota/","attorney":"Paul Egtvedt, EGTVEDT LAW FIRM, P.L.C., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Brian Slovut, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Office of the General Counsel, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants-Appellees.","caseName":"Raymond v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota","caseNameFull":"Rodney RAYMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Individually in Their Official Capacities; The University of Minnesota, Defendants-Appellees","citation":["847 F.3d 585","41 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1555","2017 WL 405636","2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1697","101 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,733"],"citeCount":36,"cluster_id":4343941,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","court_citation_string":"8th Cir.","court_id":"ca8","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-01-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"15-3575","docket_id":4577251,"judge":"Benton, Shepherd, Strand","lexisCite":"2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1697","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:18:15.199680Z","date_created":"2017-01-31T16:01:10.693453Z","score":{"bm25":14.550639}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9871706,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:12:14.021406Z","date_created":"2023-09-26T20:40:56.190861Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n*593SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge,\nconcurring.\nI concur in the judgment of the majority affirming the dismissal of Raymond’s § 1983 procedural due process claims but I write separately to express two points. First, aside from a few sweeping generalities,7 Raymond’s briefing invokes only post-termination due process requirements ","type":"concurrence-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9871705,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:54:16.252243Z","date_created":"2023-09-26T20:40:56.185932Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nSTRAND, District Judge.\nRodney Raymond (Raymond) brought this action against the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, individually in their official capacities (Regents), and the University of Minnesota (University) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The district court2 dismissed Raymond’s amended complaint. This appeal followed. We affirm.\n","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[109382,110753,111372,112701,145635,145875,223516,454336,469882,565078,625934,629187,768862,770666,793627,793841,794679,1212725,1252436,1310416,1373111,1381305,1433456],"download_url":"http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/01/153575P.pdf","id":4121201,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/01/31/rodney_raymond_v._board_of_regents_of_the_u_of_m.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:13:07.534018Z","date_created":"2017-01-31T16:01:10.698231Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d5e56946c73106d4e6d4bb7ca1640ca1820c701f","snippet":"                United States Court of Appeals\n                          For the Eighth Circuit\n                    ______________________________\n\n                              No. 15-3575\n                    ______________________________\n\n                              Rodney Raymond\n\n                                      Plaintiff - Appellant\n\n                                      v.\n\n               Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota,\n                   individually in their offi","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4121201,9871705,9871706],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10636977/pappas-v-metropolitan-police-department-of-the-district-of-columbia/","attorney":"","caseName":"Pappas v. Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10636977,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2019-2800","docket_id":29099077,"judge":"Judge Rudolph Contreras","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-18T21:01:22.922298Z","date_created":"2025-07-18T21:01:22.792511Z","score":{"bm25":14.444299}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":710,"cites":[108432,147536,184389,184608,184981,186069,1493571,2112572,2410268,2807857,8700772],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv2800-105","id":11103564,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/18/pappas_v._metropolitan_police_department_of_the_district_of_columbia.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:20:37.578245Z","date_created":"2025-07-18T21:01:22.852905Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"85fc648016b61dd53929fe1c1b11b386451e7ac6","snippet":"                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nSTEVE PAPPAS, et al.,                            :\n                                                 :\n       Plaintiffs,                               :       Civil Action No.:     19-2800 (RC)\n                                                 :\n       v.                                        :       Re Document No.:      99\n                                                 :\nDISTRICT ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11103564],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4609296/cuozzo-v-state-dba-university-of-north-dakota/","attorney":"Leo F.J. Wilking, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellant., Courtney R. Titus (argued) and Matthew A. Sagsveen (appeared), Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, for defendants and appellees.","caseName":"Cuozzo v. State, d/b/a University of North Dakota","caseNameFull":"Dr. Frank P. CUOZZO, Plaintiff and Appellant v. STATE of North Dakota D/B/A University of North Dakota, and Its President, Mark R. Kennedy, Defendants and Appellees","citation":["2019 ND 95","925 N.W.2d 752"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":4609296,"court":"North Dakota Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.D.","court_id":"nd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-04-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20180337","docket_id":14919744,"judge":"Crothers, Tufte","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:33:25.828011Z","date_created":"2019-04-11T18:10:14.611369Z","score":{"bm25":14.369225}},"neutralCite":"2019 ND 95","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9888345,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:16:38.517655Z","date_created":"2023-10-06T19:14:11.691772Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nTufte, Justice, dissenting.\n[¶20] I respectfully dissent.\n*759[¶21] \"All contracts, whether public or private, are to be interpreted by the same rules, except as otherwise provided by the laws of this state.\" N.D.C.C. § 9-07-01. The contract term at issue here was not a negotiated term but became part of the agreement by virtu","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9888344,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:16:38.511595Z","date_created":"2023-10-06T19:14:11.687583Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nCrothers, Justice.\n*754[¶1] Frank Cuozzo appeals from a judgment dismissing his breach of contract action against the State, doing business as the University of North Dakota (UND), and its president Mark Kennedy. We affirm the judgment, concluding Kennedy substantially complied with his contractual obligations in terminating Cuozzo's employment","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":5324,"cites":[102673,103007,898465,899183,1385370,4281393,4373278,4376590],"download_url":"http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND95","id":4386549,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/04/11/cuozzo_v._state_dba_university_of_north_dakota.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:16:34.556511Z","date_created":"2019-04-11T18:10:14.628722Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5b9e149e250b85d8c728b77f5bfa52e8705ebb92","snippet":"               Filed 4/11/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court\n                       IN THE SUPREME COURT\n                       STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA\n\n\n                                  2019 ND 95\n\n\nDr. Frank P. Cuozzo,                                        Plaintiff and Appellant\n\n      v.\n\nState of North Dakota d/b/a University of\nNorth Dakota, and its President, Mark R. Kennedy,       Defendants and Appellees\n\n\n                                 No. 20180337\n\n\n       Appeal from the District Court o","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4386549,9888344,9888345],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE DISPUTE","syllabus":"Board of Higher Education policies, rules and regulations adopted as part of its policy manual govern termination of university faculty members and are part of the employment contract between the institution and the faculty member. Generally, substantial compliance with the procedural requirements for termination is sufficient if their purpose is fulfilled. The separation of powers doctrine does not permit judicial examination of the adequacy of a university president's review of the record."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9461496/matter-of-cedar-st-comm-v-board-of-educ-of-the-e-hampton-union-free/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Cedar St. Comm. v. Board of Educ. of the E. Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 00189"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9461496,"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":"2024-01-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 5163/17","docket_id":68166761,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-21T17:38:25.098854Z","date_created":"2024-01-17T21:06:28.825833Z","score":{"bm25":14.350269}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[4515183,5121515,5537327,5537571,5539272,5539716,5739865,5750351,5878934,6083886,6104742,7081039,9871406],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_00189.htm","id":9919321,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/01/17/matter_of_cedar_st._comm._v._board_of_educ._of_the_e._hampton_union_free.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T10:49:46.936190Z","date_created":"2024-01-17T21:06:28.838072Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"67d7b9395836b4a62f22d364ce33733eba195250","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Cedar St. Comm. v Board of Educ. of the E. Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist. (2024 NY Slip Op 00189)\n\n\n\n\n\nMatter of Cedar St. Comm. v Board of Educ. of the E. Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist.\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 00189\n\n\nDecided on January 17, 2024\n\n\nAppellate Division, Second Departmen","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9919321],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10019931/margaret-mullen-v-metropolitan-casualty-insurance-company/","attorney":"","caseName":"Margaret MULLEN v. METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY","caseNameFull":"","citation":["507 P.3d 73","2021 COA 149"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":10019931,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-12-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals No. 20CA1357","docket_id":68987507,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-29T16:06:39.486957Z","date_created":"2024-07-29T16:06:39.405839Z","score":{"bm25":14.217019}},"neutralCite":"2021 COA 149","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[169669,1124312,1160967,1172676,2639817,4240939,5177673,10486536],"download_url":"https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/mullen-v-metro-cas-907372632/content","id":10486532,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2021/12/16/margaret_mullen_v._metropolitan_casualty_insurance_company.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:42:17.722674Z","date_created":"2024-07-29T16:06:39.425362Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a2e6d937a59486f685b5104b6bc2babf7f0f8e0a","snippet":"507 P.3d 732021 COA 149Margaret MULLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.Court of Appeals No. 20CA1357Colorado Court of Appeals, Division III.Announced December 16, 2021Larson Larimer Schneider, P.C., Philip C. Zimmerman, Vance R. Larimer, Greenwood Village, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appe","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10486532],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10292044/naftaliyeva-v-shoprite-of-ave-i/","attorney":"","caseName":"Naftaliyeva v. Shoprite of Ave. I","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 06207"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10292044,"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":"2024-12-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 509429/19","docket_id":69457780,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-21T17:50:42.328570Z","date_created":"2024-12-11T21:12:54.513500Z","score":{"bm25":14.143338}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[4153332,4643804,4646261,4661026,5536915,5817312,5823890,6345888,6559246,9369476,9371317,9400297,9401998,9907739],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_06207.htm","id":10758632,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/12/11/naftaliyeva_v._shoprite_of_ave._i.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T13:56:41.025182Z","date_created":"2024-12-11T21:12:54.526811Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a86e828b51a28dcfa27f265ed196be33f4221990","snippet":"\n\nNaftaliyeva v Shoprite of Ave. I (2024 NY Slip Op 06207)\n\n\n\n\n\nNaftaliyeva v Shoprite of Ave. I\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 06207\n\n\nDecided on December 11, 2024\n\n\nAppellate Division, Second Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10758632],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9880236/sayegh-v-city-of-yonkers/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sayegh v. City of Yonkers","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 03065"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9880236,"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":"2024-06-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 63811/19","docket_id":68887651,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-21T17:43:12.061855Z","date_created":"2024-06-26T17:13:11.773626Z","score":{"bm25":13.942127}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[4662598,5116498,5486856,5536915,5830940,6003744,9880224,9899093],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_03065.htm","id":10346846,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/06/05/sayegh_v._city_of_yonkers.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T20:58:09.821719Z","date_created":"2024-06-26T17:13:11.782136Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9d2f671633a769a5210b573b3703581744e50045","snippet":"\n\nSayegh v City of Yonkers (2024 NY Slip Op 03065)\n\n\n\n\n\nSayegh v City of Yonkers\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 03065\n\n\nDecided on June 5, 2024\n\n\nAppellate Division, Second Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.<","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10346846],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10360980/lannan-v-bd-of-governors-of-the-univ-of-nc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Lannan v. Bd. of Governors of the Univ. of N.C.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10360980,"court":"Supreme Court of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C.","court_id":"nc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"316PA22","docket_id":69767504,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-21T16:11:11.690708Z","date_created":"2025-03-21T16:11:11.647072Z","score":{"bm25":13.941943}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[110169,1201873,1264176,1265485,1275740,1316969,1330834,1333209,1341258,1341428,1371658,1371676,1390481,3163978,3173536,3647530,3648656,3659189,4197246,6733576],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=44636","id":10827568,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/21/lannan_v._bd._of_governors_of_the_univ._of_n.c..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:49:02.602932Z","date_created":"2025-03-21T16:11:11.649148Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a06907bb245d6d3b9551a0b3e27c386c84338e9e","snippet":"               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                   No. 316PA22\n\n                               Filed 21 March 2025\n\nJOSEPH LANNAN and LANDRY KUEHN, on behalf of themselves and others\nsimilarly situated\n\n             v.\nBOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA,\nknown and distinguished by the name of THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH\nCAROLINA, a body politic and corporate\n\n\n      On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10827568],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the University's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of contract claims."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4546804/gonzalez-v-board-of-educ-of-city-of-ny/","attorney":"","caseName":"Gonzalez v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2018 NY Slip Op 7103"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4546804,"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":"2018-10-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2016-01358","docket_id":8077185,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:15:22.933739Z","date_created":"2018-10-24T19:46:07.400386Z","score":{"bm25":13.938746}},"neutralCite":"2018 NY Slip Op 7103","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2149802,2220245,4094918,5755117,5797472,5800754,5854091,5924018,6083548,6092894,6099589],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07103.htm","id":4324057,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2018/10/24/gonzalez_v._board_of_educ._of_city_of_n.y..html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:33:22.822743Z","date_created":"2018-10-24T19:46:07.412631Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d6d5e55321781019902f3392c147af8978147d71","snippet":"\r\n\r\nGonzalez v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. (2018 NY Slip Op 07103)\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nGonzalez v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.\r\n\r\n\r\n2018 NY Slip Op 07103\r\n\r\n\r\nDecided on October 24, 2018\r\n\r\n\r\nAppellate Division, Second Department\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nPublished by New York S","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4324057],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10360987/state-of-california-v-us-department-of-education/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of California v. US Department of Education","caseNameFull":"","citation":["132 F.4th 92"],"citeCount":11,"cluster_id":10360987,"court":"Court of Appeals for the First Circuit","court_citation_string":"1st Cir.","court_id":"ca1","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"25-1244","docket_id":69728918,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:39:12.245050Z","date_created":"2025-03-21T17:00:40.142320Z","score":{"bm25":13.828292}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112864,145884,171744,7248313,7847914,9420050,9424477,9425596,9429294,9431455,9435351,9836286],"download_url":"https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1244P-01A.pdf","id":10827575,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/21/state_of_california_v._us_department_of_education.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:39:12.710339Z","date_created":"2025-03-21T17:00:40.151406Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b56edd1456d4e08cc2f98dfa6ccee28cccade9db","snippet":"          United States Court of Appeals\n                       For the First Circuit\n\n\nNo. 25-1244\n\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF NEW\nJERSEY; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF MARYLAND;\n             STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF WISCONSIN,\n\n                       Plaintiffs, Appellees,\n\n                                 v.\n\n  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; LINDA MCMAHON, in her official\n    capacity as Secretary of Education; DENISE CARTER, in her\n offici","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10827575],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9356206/murphy-v-clinton/","attorney":"","caseName":"Murphy v. Clinton","caseNameFull":"","citation":["217 Conn. App. 182"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9356206,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-01-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC45238","docket_id":66695365,"judge":"Prescott; Moll; Seeley","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:34.947662Z","date_created":"2023-01-03T13:01:17.883841Z","score":{"bm25":13.776137}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2321791,3318932,3323221,7848010],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP217/217AP51.pdf","id":9351678,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/01/03/murphy_v._clinton.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:35.152015Z","date_created":"2023-01-03T13:01:17.889279Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0fe5b98823cab2c9cc01d3bdbd83c637e9a89098","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action to recover damages for personal injuries sus- tained as a result of an allegedly defective municipal highway, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex, where the court, Shah, J., granted the defendant's motion to dis- miss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Reversed; further pro- ceedings. Evan K. Buchberger, for the appellant (plaintiff). Richard C. Buturla, for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9351678],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff sought, pursuant to the municipal defective highway statute (§ 13a-149), to recover damages and other relief for personal injuries she sustained when she fell on a road owned by the defendant town. The plaintiff tripped after stepping into a defective water main hole cover that had sunken below the grade of the surrounding pavement. One month later, the plaintiff, via certified mail, sent to the defendant a written notice of her injuries and of her intent to commence a civil action pursuant to § 13a-149. The plaintiff included three color photo- graphs in the notice, in which the water main hole cover was visible from three different distances within the intersection, and the plaintiff referenced the three photographs in her notice. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction because the notice provided by the plaintiff was deficient because of the absence of a statement describing what the alleged defect was and the use of mere conclusory statements of a defect. The trial court also stated that attaching photographs to the notice did not remedy the absence of descriptive language of the alleged defect in the plaintiff's complaint. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held that the trial court improperly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the language of the plaintiff's notice and the appended photographs, considered together, sufficiently described the cause of her injury and patently met the requirements of § 13a-149: the defendant was suffi- ciently notified of the cause of the plaintiff's injury and its precise location and condition such that it could identify, and begin its investiga- tion into, the defective condition of the water main hole cover, and to require more of a notice would go beyond the statutory requirements of § 13a-149; moreover, the trial court improperly concluded that the photographs included with the notice should not be considered in assessing the adequacy of the notice, as there is no language in § 13a- 149 that prohibits the consideration of photographs that are included in a notice, and there is no statutory language that otherwise limits the assessment of the adequacy of the notice to the express words set forth therein, the written notice expressly referred to the enclosed photo- graphs, and to prohibit the consideration of photographs included in a notice sent pursuant to § 13a-149, and thereby render their inclusion a nullity, would run afoul not only of the notice's statutory purpose of aiding a municipality in the prompt investigation of a condition that may endanger public safety but also of the requirements to construe the statute broadly and to interpret the notice as a whole. Argued November 9, 2022—officially released January 3, 2023"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9476110/matter-of-adjournment-of-a-motion-for-summary-judgment/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Adjournment of a Motion for Summary Judgment","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 24039"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9476110,"court":"New York Supreme Court, Kings County","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Kings","court_id":"nysupctkings","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":68258206,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:25:31.512819Z","date_created":"2024-02-16T17:08:50.661525Z","score":{"bm25":13.720717}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[106449,108138,2740843,3177965,5522538,5525907,5527122,5534075,5864881,5870153,5912886,5981411,9941125],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_24039.htm","id":9941641,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/02/14/matter_of_adjournment_of_a_motion_for_summary_judgment_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:19:58.154078Z","date_created":"2024-02-16T17:08:50.674976Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e90921bb24ec9ac41097cc0b024987e3ee11af17","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Adjournment of a Motion for Summary Judgment (2024 NY Slip Op 24039)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\nMatter of Adjournment of a Motion for Summary Judgment\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 24039\n\n\nDecided on February 14, 2024\n\n\nSupreme Court, Kings County\n\n\nMaslow, J.\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9941641],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}