{"count":855697,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0zMy44ODM3JnM9MTAyNjcxNjMmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wOS0yNyZwPTI%3D&q=AMENDED+COMPLAINT&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4314166/level-3-communications-llc-v-united-states/","attorney":"Amended Complaint RCFC 15(a)(2)","caseName":"Level 3 Communications, LLC v. United States","caseNameFull":"LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Verizon Deutschland GmbH., Defendant-Intervenor","citation":["128 Fed. Cl. 391","2016 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1561","2016 WL 6124512"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4314166,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-10-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"16-829","docket_id":4481107,"judge":"Susan G. Braden","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:10:01.261164Z","date_created":"2016-10-20T20:02:12.906837Z","score":{"bm25":60.314693}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[106497,518520],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv0829-44-0","id":4091427,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/10/20/level_3_communications_llc_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T13:52:12.351853Z","date_created":"2016-10-20T20:02:12.912216Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2cf057314ea8255f4c092397928a96b953fc1ebb","snippet":"\n\n\n  ORDER\n \n\n  SUSAN G. BRADEN, Judge\n \n\n  On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims. On August 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Judgment On The Administrative Record. On August 23, 2016, the Government and the Defendant-Intervenor filed Responses and Cross Motions Fo","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4091427],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7175575/state-ex-rel-godale-v-eleventh-dist-court-of-appeals/","attorney":"In Mandamus. On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed. Relator's motion for leave to amend complaint granted.","caseName":"State ex rel. Godale v. Eleventh Dist. Court of Appeals","caseNameFull":"STATE EX REL. GODALE v. ELEVENTH DIST. COURT OF APPEALS","citation":["108 N.E.3d 79","2018 Ohio 3867","153 Ohio St. 3d 1481"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7175575,"court":"Ohio Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ohio","court_id":"ohio","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-09-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2018-0892","docket_id":64163940,"judge":"Complaint, Connor, Degenaro, Dewine, Dismiss, Donnell, Fischer, French, Kennedy, Motion, Relator, Respondent","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T12:57:58.926202Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T11:03:59.684404Z","score":{"bm25":59.96159}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7085960,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-24T23:40:53.399103Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T11:03:59.692707Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nO'Connor, C.J., and DeGenaro, J., concur in granting respondent's motion to dismiss but would deny relator's motion to amend complaint.\n","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7085960],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7170927/anderson-v-eighth-dist-court-of-appeals/","attorney":"In Mandamus. On relator's motion for leave to file amended complaint in mandamus. Motion granted. On respondent's motion to dismiss amended complaint. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.","caseName":"Anderson v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals","caseNameFull":"ANDERSON v. EIGHTH DIST. COURT OF APPEALS.","citation":["92 N.E.3d 875","2018 Ohio 723","152 Ohio St. 3d 1402"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7170927,"court":"Ohio Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ohio","court_id":"ohio","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-02-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2017–1674","docket_id":64159292,"judge":"Degenaro","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T12:56:49.029262Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T09:42:20.244956Z","score":{"bm25":53.75701}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7081261,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-24T23:40:03.556691Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T09:42:20.253565Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nDeGenaro, J., not participating.\n","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7081261],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10660140/in-re-butler-amended/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Butler (Amended)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10660140,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-08-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24-BG-0090","docket_id":71049465,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-08-25T19:04:45.832934Z","date_created":"2025-08-25T19:04:45.751858Z","score":{"bm25":47.873047}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1992646,2164212,2354213,2355105,2764368,2770334,4967432,4970902,9637185],"download_url":"https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/In%20re%20Butler%2C%2024-BG-0090amended.pdf","id":11126727,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/08/25/in_re_butler_amended.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:32:52.312491Z","date_created":"2025-08-25T19:04:45.755077Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e254f6cfcbeb9f8e5b8c03dda3df5c3b93e6f5ae","snippet":"Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic\nand Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of\nany formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go\nto press.\n\n             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                 No. 24-BG-0090\n\n                      IN RE CRAIG A. BUTLER, RESPONDENT.\n\n                         A Suspended Member of the Bar\n                   of the Distr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11126727],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9419084/in-re-sealed-case-amended-redacted-opinion/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re: Sealed Case (AMENDED REDACTED OPINION)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9419084,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-08-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23-5044","docket_id":66964765,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:11:32.566469Z","date_created":"2023-08-09T17:01:12.854687Z","score":{"bm25":38.490173}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1502,109338,112792,118476,176729,186615,187300,187457,466119,486531,525193,577087,596107,701259,729929,732420,754089,1351949,2476158,2683741,2718298,2809763,3211503,3213873,4020710,4197202,4288403,4296289,4357023,4456901,4538480,6333582,6498784,7229351,7844199,8414628,8991224,9377029,9413211,9422964,9426022,9428473,9429615,9431161,9431448,9431866,9431954,9432543,9432887,9434626,9439173,9439415,9439788,9468405,9474035,9480861,9807089],"download_url":"https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/64C651B4E1AD395485258A06005B09BD/$file/23-5044-2011549.pdf","id":9554646,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/08/09/in_re_sealed_case_amended_redacted_opinion.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T01:26:08.754173Z","date_created":"2023-08-09T17:01:12.856010Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"61bd788c1ddda7e83c93870adbf62e81f53a12df","snippet":"        PUBLIC COPY -   SEALED INFORMATION DELETED\n\n\n ~nih~o ~httcs C!Iourt of J\\ppcals\n          FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued May 19, 2023                      Decided July 18, 2023\n                                       Reissued August 9, 2023\n\n                         No. 23-5044\n\n                     lNRE: SEALED CASE\n\n\n        Appeal from the United States District Court\n                for the District of Columbia\n                    (No. 1:23-sc-00031)\n\n\n     Ari Holtzbl","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9554646],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10621853/bradley-v-altercare/","attorney":"","caseName":"Bradley v. Altercare","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 2344"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10621853,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24CA000032","docket_id":70690226,"judge":"King","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-02T14:14:38.990295Z","date_created":"2025-07-02T14:14:38.908120Z","score":{"bm25":37.513474}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 2344","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3728815,6756083,6764697,6768826,6773664,6774632,9801927],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2025/2025-Ohio-2344.pdf","id":11088441,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/02/bradley_v._altercare.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T18:00:33.667286Z","date_created":"2025-07-02T14:14:38.928058Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d568b81488d1f87a884643bbdd4daf15e0995f4a","snippet":"[Cite as Bradley v. Altercare, 2025-Ohio-2344.]\n\n\n                                        COURT OF APPEALS\n                                    GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO\n                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n\nBENJAMIN BRADLEY,                                 :   JUDGES:\nADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE                       :   Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.\nOF PATSY BRADLEY                                  :   Hon. Andrew J. King, J.\n                                                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11088441],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Summary judgment - amended complaint did not relate back to original; Civ.R. 15(D)"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9410298/garcia-v-tygier-rubin-amended-opinion/","attorney":"","caseName":"Garcia v. Tygier & Rubin, amended opinion","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9410298,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-CV-0051 & 22-CV-0302","docket_id":67461113,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:09:19.394416Z","date_created":"2023-06-29T14:03:52.147732Z","score":{"bm25":37.462738}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[503464,1852639,1937718,1948746,1965694,1978938,1984607,2008593,2062108,2075729,2156119,2291401,2314990,2321267,2443871,2447967,2522588,2732033,3184266,4359323,4953809,4960066,4967356,8668513],"download_url":"https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/Garcia%20v.%20Tygier%2022-CV-0051%20AMENDED.pdf","id":9405774,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/06/29/garcia_v._tygier__rubin_amended_opinion.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:26:15.181370Z","date_created":"2023-06-29T14:03:52.149291Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d89654050e659a7cc0dbc530762fdb40d6a2c837","snippet":"Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the\nAtlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the\nCourt of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound\nvolumes go to press.\n\n             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                        Nos. 22-CV-0051 & 22-CV-0302\n\n                           KARL GARCIA, APPELLANT,\n\n                                        V.\n\n                MICHELLE TYGIER and ROBERT ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9405774],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10668609/clark-v-grange-ins/","attorney":"","caseName":"Clark v. Grange Ins.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 3243"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":10668609,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-09-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24AP-765","docket_id":71302458,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-09T19:14:10.804510Z","date_created":"2025-09-09T19:14:10.712308Z","score":{"bm25":37.3824}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 3243","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2691553,2704055,2705323,2707053,3192283,3701579,3720120,3726943,3730966,3731690,3733995,3754103,3766457,4182314,5122835,6756029,6758114,6761734,6762265,6762889,9368079,9800999,9802110,9964504,10743100],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2025/2025-Ohio-3243.pdf","id":11135196,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/09/09/clark_v._grange_ins..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:18:38.882069Z","date_created":"2025-09-09T19:14:10.729457Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"1f3cae7131ea1cc7bfbd0d0386549a43e7a652d0","snippet":"[Cite as Clark v. Grange Ins., 2025-Ohio-3243.]\n\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n\nApril Clark,                                      :\n\n                 Plaintiff-Appellant,             :\n                                                                   No. 24AP-765\nDiamond Clark,                                    :            (C.P.C. No. 24CV-6694)\n\n                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11135196],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's amended complaint for failure to state a claim."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2649200/coastal-environmental-group-inc-v-united-states/","attorney":"Brian W. Craver, Washington, DC, for plaintiff., Devin A Wolak, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant., Postaward Bid Protest; Cancellation of Procurement After Protest Filed; Motion to Dismiss; Mootness; Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; RCFC 15(a) Versus RCFC 15(d); Futility of Supplementation; Laches; Supplemental Complaint Permitted","caseName":"Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. v. United States","caseNameFull":"COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant","citation":["114 Fed. Cl. 124","2013 WL 6913251"],"citeCount":21,"cluster_id":2649200,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-01-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"13-71C","docket_id":71675,"judge":"Sweeney","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:35:16.326739Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T06:21:59.711310Z","score":{"bm25":37.335186}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[99592,102770,106366,106720,107731,107969,108413,108985,109463,110044,111982,112389,112792,131156,187446,210550,211655,424006,508850,544370,580826,606761,699664,724972,731296,776055,783695],"download_url":"http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/SWEENEY.COASTAL010614.pdf","id":2649200,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/01/06/coastal_environmental_group_inc._v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T21:35:24.767652Z","date_created":"2014-01-14T20:39:59.682287Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e95c872a945bff1460035ca4c47145c28a728e5d","snippet":"\n\n\n\n   OPINION AND ORDER\n  \n\n\n  SWEENEY, Judge\n \n\n  This postaward bid protest concerns the award of a soil remediation contract. In its initial complaint, plaintiff contended that the contracting officer improperly awarded the contract to another bidder despite her beliefs that the awardee’s bid was nonresponsive","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2649200],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10781264/banks-v-hoffman-amended-opinion/","attorney":"","caseName":"Banks v. Hoffman (Amended Opinion)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10781264,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":"S","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-01-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-CV-0318","docket_id":67769610,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-01-29T16:04:52.243062Z","date_created":"2026-01-29T16:04:52.139416Z","score":{"bm25":36.98505}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[111819,181605,1462267,1502169,1786026,1887901,1989674,2015615,2293509,2314734,2654918,2782312,2796388,4089263,4109959,4548345,4715428,6677269,8247691,8413180,9418969,9430106,9432650,9646769,9760774,9761750,9782265,9809532,9810125,9889005,11084231],"download_url":"https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Banks%20v.%20Hoffman%2020-CV-0318%20%28AMENDED%29.pdf","id":11247887,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/01/29/banks_v._hoffman_amended_opinion.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-01-29T16:05:11.858591Z","date_created":"2026-01-29T16:04:52.143892Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"829d70c3f53c09a97dd5a62124d39a3a2925c3e3","snippet":"Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic\nand Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of\nany formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go\nto press.\n\n\n             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                 No. 20-CV-0318\n\n                       MORGAN BANKS, et al., APPELLANTS,\n\n                                         V.\n\n                      DAVID H. HOFFMAN, ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11247887],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6619673/united-states-v-charles-hillie-amended-opinion/","attorney":"","caseName":"United States v. Charles Hillie (AMENDED OPINION)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6619673,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-06-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-3027","docket_id":63555058,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:28:12.001955Z","date_created":"2022-06-28T21:00:58.444451Z","score":{"bm25":36.15079}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2561,106880,109891,112600,112933,147086,180848,185677,185976,198407,213954,281912,439237,483889,498159,532623,597486,676499,720552,735397,765665,804921,813289,1289205,1358878,1448982,1454374,1757784,2669008,2744069,2758059,2763971,2797990,2812236,3171723,3180284,3191118,4015838,4026475,4096252,4107987,4113578,4146618,4159480,4291303,4344447,4371132,4376013,4413249,4540102,4547602,4660042,7246236,8415102,9413253,9421496,9424558,9425379,9425385,9428936,9431431,9431675,9432229,9432420,9432990,9433068,9434566,9435221,9439062,9439599,9440225,9440599,9442051,9462102,9468160,9479492,9484118,9486409,9489889,9527058,9818883,9821517,9842003,9872014,9873144,9877613,9877734],"download_url":"https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/A5A29A3CB65BD0D68525886F0070999D/$file/19-3027-1952609.pdf","id":6496031,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/06/28/united_states_v._charles_hillie_amended_opinion.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T22:42:12.941144Z","date_created":"2022-06-28T21:00:58.493380Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dca18e395ce9d959f9a26d007e17de6881c18187","snippet":" United States Court of Appeals\n         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued April 20, 2021             Decided September 17, 2021\n                                  Reissued June 28, 2022\n\n                        No. 19-3027\n\n               UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n                       APPELLEE\n\n                             v.\n\n                     CHARLES HILLIE,\n                       APPELLANT\n\n\n        Appeal from the United States District Court\n                for the Distric","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6496031],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10267166/board-of-supervisors-of-issaquena-county-mississippi-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"Board of Supervisors of Issaquena County, Mississippi v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10267166,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-1415","docket_id":63375657,"judge":"Loren A. Smith","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-08T17:02:59.905462Z","date_created":"2024-11-08T17:02:59.849144Z","score":{"bm25":35.082783}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":14406,"cites":[497054,4370260,4534743,4683336,6659106,8961534,9435668],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cv1415-44-0","id":10733756,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/18/board_of_supervisors_of_issaquena_county_mississippi_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T10:59:18.897004Z","date_created":"2024-11-08T17:02:59.860906Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a93452aec9c70abb06a79a3c7391f4e14274fb17","snippet":"         In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n                                         No. 21-1415\n                                   Filed: October 18, 2024\n\n                                              )\n BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF                      )\n ISSAQUENA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI,               )\n                                              )\n                   Plaintiff,                 )\n                                              )\n v.                                          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10733756],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED ORDER denying [30] Defendant&039;s Motion to Strike Plaintiff&039;s [27] Second Amended Complaint"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10662777/global-health-council-v-donald-j-trump-amended-opinion/","attorney":"","caseName":"Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (AMENDED OPINION)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10662777,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":"2025-07-07","dateFiled":"2025-08-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"25-5097","docket_id":69834201,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-08-29T00:00:52.336644Z","date_created":"2025-08-29T00:00:52.233680Z","score":{"bm25":34.98459}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/08/25-5097-2132521.pdf","id":11129364,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/08/28/global_health_council_v._donald_j._trump_amended_opinion.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:33:59.252588Z","date_created":"2025-08-29T00:00:52.236488Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3f7c262d2e32c58e8645392c5eb8b3d28a89dc54","snippet":" United States Court of Appeals\n         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued July 7, 2025                Decided August 13, 2025\n                                   Reissued August 28, 2025\n\n                        No. 25-5097\n\n             GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL, ET AL.,\n                      APPELLEES\n\n                             v.\n\n DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT\n      OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,\n                      APPELLANTS\n\n\n              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11129364],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10585889/tippins-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"TIPPINS v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10585889,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-05-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"18-923","docket_id":60038156,"judge":"David A. Tapp","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-05-16T21:02:38.788618Z","date_created":"2025-05-16T21:02:38.705559Z","score":{"bm25":34.88191}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":14455,"cites":[862,87891,689221,782928,4321686,4433580,7218392,8592907,8592909,9946760],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv0923-142-0","id":11052477,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/16/tippins_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T13:02:00.499499Z","date_created":"2025-05-16T21:02:38.718057Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"125e48387134c9fec5ba5a13286903601b7f14a1","snippet":"            In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n                                           No. 18-923C\n                                       Filed: May 16, 2025\n\n\n    TONIA TIPPINS, et al.,\n\n                    Plaintiffs,\n\n    v.\n\n    THE UNITED STATES,\n\n                    Defendant.\n\n\nNathan S. Mammen and Cole T. Tipton, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Washington, D.C., with Ragan\nNaresh and Grace Brier, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs.\n\nDouglas G. Edelschick, Senior Tria","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11052477],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED OPINION and ORDER granting [129] Motion for an Order holding the Coast Guards application of High Year Tenure is contrary to law; granting [141] MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10662536/bell-v-weinstock-friedman-friedman-pa-amended-opinion/","attorney":"","caseName":"Bell v. Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, PA (Amended opinion)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10662536,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-08-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"25-CV-0413","docket_id":71219086,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-08-28T15:04:48.982064Z","date_created":"2025-08-28T15:04:48.846173Z","score":{"bm25":34.343616}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[137743,145793,208290,482598,1085518,1438243,1495938,1537232,1783916,1904669,1953425,1962825,1983247,2000639,2076498,2099996,2160829,2173497,2206288,2262356,2312474,2320892,2321964,2442956,2555986,2655705,2676265,2682271,2779011,2780306,2826943,3184264,4185751,4407338,4410910,4432050,4710240,4964295,4966372,4967356,7238125,9432987,9433669,9435068,9435339,9449998,9644504,9697035,9736512,9820835,9880513,10487640],"download_url":"https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/Bell%20v.%20Weinstock%2C%20et%20al.%20%20%2823-CV-0413%29c.pdf","id":11129123,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/08/28/bell_v._weinstock_friedman__friedman_pa_amended_opinion.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T02:43:15.418049Z","date_created":"2025-08-28T15:04:48.849518Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"89d8e0a8fba18c75af85c93845135c81d352c364","snippet":"Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic\nand Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of\nany formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go\nto press.\n\n             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                   No. 23-CV-0413\n\n                            MA SHUN BELL, APPELLANT,\n\n                                         V.\n\n           WEINSTOCK, FRIEDMAN & FRIEDMAN, ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11129123],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10370739/mcdow-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"McDow v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10370739,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-732","docket_id":69831699,"judge":"Molly R. Silfen","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-04-01T21:03:00.983458Z","date_created":"2025-04-01T21:03:00.936565Z","score":{"bm25":34.232746}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103558,211310,560004,658825,1486879,2960854,6649457,8439102,8592963,9431362,10497972],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cv0732-89-0","id":10837327,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/04/01/mcdow_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T06:29:29.893288Z","date_created":"2025-04-01T21:03:00.944548Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7691ca52edaaacc42d1457112b4c8cb07da7a207","snippet":"             In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n\n\n RON A. MCDOW,\n\n                           Plaintiff,\n\n        v.                                                    No. 21-732T\n                                                          (Filed April 1, 2025)\n THE UNITED STATES,\n\n                          Defendant.\n\n\nGreg H. Oakley, BuildLaw PLC, Nashville, TN, for plaintiff.\n\nKatherine R. Powers, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for\ndefendant.\n\n\n\n    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10837327],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED ORDER granting in part and denying in part [77] motion for reconsideration. The government shall file its answer to the remainder of [42] the amended complaint by 4/15/2025"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10774890/terrell-v-united-states-amended-opinion/","attorney":"","caseName":"Terrell v. United States (Amended Opinion)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10774890,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":"S","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-01-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23-CO-0390","docket_id":70748949,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-01-15T16:05:16.600141Z","date_created":"2026-01-15T16:05:16.496169Z","score":{"bm25":34.196842}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104579,290592,292529,447044,453357,530027,1257195,1546291,1967351,1980853,1993178,2001125,2010300,2057753,2179176,2329108,2332546,2608432,2772164,4030395,4187682,4538005,4962595,4964581,4967040,4968067,6983696,7845571,8169464,9420472,9422578,9424220,9429354,9430620,9432249,9471744,9516068,9543354,9591332,9649738,9752061],"download_url":"https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Terrell%20v.%20US%2023-CO-0390%20%28AMENDED%29.pdf","id":11241475,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/01/15/terrell_v._united_states_amended_opinion.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-01-15T16:05:40.863985Z","date_created":"2026-01-15T16:05:16.502610Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4ad2134f73e38f164fb158d0c6195e4121d5e700","snippet":"Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic\nand Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of\nany formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go\nto press.\n\n             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                 No. 23-CO-0390\n\n                         GREGORY TERRELL, APPELLANT,\n\n                                         V.\n\n                            UNITED STATES, AP","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11241475],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9498170/everhart-v-coshocton-cty-mem-hosp/","attorney":"","caseName":"Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["242 N.E.3d 874","2024 Ohio 1671"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":9498170,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-04-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21AP-74","docket_id":63142507,"judge":"Mentel","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:27:54.057513Z","date_created":"2024-04-30T19:09:28.475853Z","score":{"bm25":34.151688}},"neutralCite":"2024 Ohio 1671","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2707170,2749125,3149780,3684777,3727314,3732375,3758268,3780130,6321213,6755085,6758010,6758451,6762597,6763464,9893348,9913578],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2024/2024-Ohio-1671.pdf","id":9964783,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/04/30/everhart_v._coshocton_cty._mem._hosp..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:27:54.082623Z","date_created":"2024-04-30T19:09:28.495671Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"943b2fc4878bbcbdb1a33176b9444b163050d526","snippet":"[Cite as Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., 2024-Ohio-1671.]\n\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nMachelle Everhart, Individually and as             :\nAdministrator of the Estate of\nTodd Everhart, Deceased,                           :\n\n                Plaintiff-Appellant,               :\n                                                                      No. 21AP-74\nv.                                    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9964783],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Judgment affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4724352/recovery-funding-llc-v-spiers/","attorney":"","caseName":"Recovery Funding, L.L.C. v. Spiers","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 Ohio 364"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4724352,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-02-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19AP000274","docket_id":16806447,"judge":"Wise, J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:07:33.469695Z","date_created":"2020-02-05T16:09:44.151445Z","score":{"bm25":34.067036}},"neutralCite":"2020 Ohio 364","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8149,"cites":[3716331,3782408,3784670],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2020/2020-Ohio-364.pdf","id":4504679,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/02/04/recovery_funding_l.l.c._v._spiers.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:38:34.144456Z","date_created":"2020-02-05T16:09:44.175063Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dab005f877050db6f5fbcb01bbb7507b40c0c234","snippet":"[Cite as Recovery Funding, L.L.C. v. Spiers, 2020-Ohio-364.]\n\n\n                                      COURT OF APPEALS\n                                    FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO\n                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n\n\n                                    :                          JUDGES:\nRECOVERY FUNDING, LLC               :                          Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.\n                                    :                          Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.\n              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4504679],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Amended complaint/default judgment"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10267163/freealliancecom-llc-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"freealliance.com, LLC v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10267163,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24-53","docket_id":69355722,"judge":"Eleni M. Roumel","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-08T17:02:56.135212Z","date_created":"2024-11-08T17:02:56.073906Z","score":{"bm25":33.8837}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[106497,211053,446663,518520,571523,582686,2673296,2755976,2787004,3190743,4203963,4513547,6644917,6656465,6656905,6658202,6660171,6826215,8409451,9424469,9435339],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024cv0053-74-0","id":10733753,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/18/freealliance.com_llc_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T10:59:32.808351Z","date_created":"2024-11-08T17:02:56.085327Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ad63a7041885e693c42b38568ca3087fef8fb343","snippet":"         In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n\n    FREEALLIANCE.COM, LLC, et al.,                        Nos. 24-cv-53, 24-cv-126\n                 Plaintiffs,\n                                                          Filed Under Seal: October 11,\n                                                          2024\n                    v.\n\n    THE UNITED STATES,                                    Publication: October 18,\n                                                          2024 1\n          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10733753],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED OPINION (reissued for publication of [70] SEALED ORDER granting [65] Plaintiff&039;s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint"}]}