{"count":479756,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0zMS40Njk1OTcmcz05NDc1NTA5JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDktMjkmcD0y&q=AMENDED+COMPLAINT+Procedural+Law&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"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":49.386765}},"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":39.240128}},"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/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":38.426846}},"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/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":37.67801}},"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":36.835804}},"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/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":35.574043}},"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/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":35.132027}},"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/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":35.113045}},"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/4375984/in-re-amendments-to-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure/","attorney":"Judge Laurel Moore Lee, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Plant City, Florida; Charles Cole Jeffries, Jr., Past Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Tampa, Florida; and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Krys Godwin, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner, Sarah E. Kay, Co-Chair, Rules and Forms Committee, Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, Sessums Black Caballero Ficarrotta, Tampa, Florida; C. Debra Welch, Co-Chair, Rules and Forms Committee, Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, The Law Firm of C. Debra Welch PA, West Palm Beach, Florida; Laura Davis Smith, Chair, Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, Greene Smith & Associates, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida; Thomas J. Sasser, Jorge M. Cestero, Peter J. Trombadore, and Trisha P. Armstrong of Sasser, Cestero & Sasser, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida; and Gregory Firestone, Ph.D., Sarasota, Florida, Responding with Comments","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"In Re: Amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","citation":["214 So. 3d 400","42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 319","2017 WL 1031456","2017 Fla. LEXIS 598"],"citeCount":10,"cluster_id":4375984,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-03-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC16-978","docket_id":4618309,"judge":"Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Canady, Polston, Lawson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:27:27.590314Z","date_created":"2017-03-16T15:05:54.940255Z","score":{"bm25":35.099068}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1716133,1768178,1837180],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc16-978.pdf","id":4153237,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/03/16/in_re_amendments_to_florida_family_law_rules_of_procedure.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:34:38.644408Z","date_created":"2017-03-16T15:05:54.946294Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f2c9581ffc8b6bd2af6d0c38428104d9a2d5c600","snippet":"\n\n\n  PER CURIAM.\n \n\n  This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure and Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Forms. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.\n \n\n  BACKGROUND\n \n\n  The Family Law Rules Committee (Committee) has filed an out-of-cycle report recommendin","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4153237],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4443943/in-re-complaint-against-beatty/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Complaint Against Beatty","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2017 Ohio 8588"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4443943,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-11-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17AP-337","docket_id":6225176,"judge":"Per Curiam","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:46:40.234318Z","date_created":"2017-11-16T21:17:16.972599Z","score":{"bm25":34.70235}},"neutralCite":"2017 Ohio 8588","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2017/2017-Ohio-8588.pdf","id":4221196,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/11/16/in_re_complaint_against_beatty.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:21:47.552560Z","date_created":"2017-11-16T21:17:16.978938Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2bfa7f7edb30a280346227e1d586246aeecc6211","snippet":"[Cite as In re Complaint Against Beatty, 2017-Ohio-8588.]\n\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nIn the Matter of a Criminal Complaint,              :\nFiled by Robert L. Hillman\nAgainst Judge Laurel A. Beatty,                     :              No. 17AP-293\n                                                                 (C.P.C. No. 16MS-342)\n                Appellant.                          :\n                ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4221196],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Appeal dismissed for lack of final appealable order."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6446530/united-states-v-hirani-engineering-land-amended-opinion/","attorney":"","caseName":"United States v. Hirani Engineering & Land (AMENDED OPINION)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6446530,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-03-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-7010","docket_id":63125666,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:41:42.322051Z","date_created":"2022-03-01T21:00:45.724291Z","score":{"bm25":34.625305}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103978,111164,184363,187136,198903,399398,460176,553962,567960,712999,730972,2009356,2069043,2156596,2330704,2345353,2385703,2403193],"download_url":"https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/63B58C6389857679852587F8007079B0/$file/19-7010-1937223.pdf","id":6318641,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/03/01/united_states_v._hirani_engineering__land_amended_opinion.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T06:25:43.588181Z","date_created":"2022-03-01T21:00:45.726438Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b0eb2d0c7d7c3df41beec821c02b2f879cc12479","snippet":" United States Court of Appeals\n         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nSubmitted March 27, 2020          Decided June 19, 2020\n                                  Reissued March 1, 2022\n\n                       No. 19-7010\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF\n         AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, LLC,\n                     APPELLEE\n\n                             v.\n\n       HIRANI ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING, PC,\n                       APPELLEE\n\n               COLONIAL SUR","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6318641],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4608070/gordon-reid-v-hugh-j-hurwitz-amended-opinion/","attorney":"","caseName":"Gordon Reid v. Hugh J. Hurwitz (AMENDED OPINION)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4608070,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-04-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17-5012","docket_id":14901043,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:33:00.330543Z","date_created":"2019-04-09T15:00:38.120384Z","score":{"bm25":34.479824}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[105573,108432,109338,111719,111982,112747,118176,118190,118315,145706,145730,145875,150088,181472,184510,186422,186696,187386,499041,500338,548914,562601,564944,583331,588798,608074,609724,621643,670647,789063,815037,821306],"download_url":"https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/11D29F3542775A1B852583D7004EF6B4/$file/17-5012.pdf","id":4385323,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/04/09/gordon_reid_v._hugh_j._hurwitz_amended_opinion.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:15:45.682732Z","date_created":"2019-04-09T15:00:38.130601Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"79c6e7b8ba51d4ebb900fc9fb0baea86a3f6ef07","snippet":" United States Court of Appeals\n         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued May 17, 2018                 Decided February 5, 2019\n                                      Amended April 9, 2019\n\n                         No. 17-5012\n\n                      GORDON C. REID,\n                        APPELLANT\n\n                              v.\n\n HUGH J. HURWITZ, ACTING DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF\n                       PRISONS,\n                       APPELLEE\n\n\n        Appeal from the United St","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4385323],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4422295/in-re-private-criminal-complaint-d-miles/","attorney":"Donald Miles, appellant, pro se., John H. Scanlon, Assistant District Attorney, Scranton, for Commonwealth, ap-pellee., Philip M. McCarthy, Office of Attorney General, Harrisburg, for Commonwealth, participating party.","caseName":"In Re: Private Criminal Complaint D. Miles","caseNameFull":"In RE: Private Criminal Complaint Donald MILES Appeal Of: Donald Miles","citation":["170 A.3d 530","2017 Pa. Super. 279","2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 653"],"citeCount":25,"cluster_id":4422295,"court":"Superior Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa. Super. Ct.","court_id":"pasuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-08-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"In Re: Private Criminal Complaint D. Miles No. 434 MDA 2017","docket_id":6144416,"judge":"Gantman, Lazarus, Musmanno","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:40:54.558680Z","date_created":"2017-08-28T19:19:50.190556Z","score":{"bm25":34.0431}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1478462,1537081,1918380,2076815,2161627,2285116,2403806,2424451],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/Opinion - Affirmed - 10322403923014153.pdf","id":4199548,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/08/28/in_re_private_criminal_complaint_d._miles.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:06:35.856262Z","date_created":"2017-08-28T19:19:50.195245Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3a43bb69ba068c390fac9036213bcf93fc90e1a5","snippet":"\n\n\n  OPINION BY\n \n\n  GANTMAN, P.J.:\n \n\n  Appellant, Donald Miles, appeals\n  \n   pro se\n  \n  from the order entered in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, which denied and dismissed his petition for approval of his private criminal complaint. We affirm.\n \n\n  The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history o","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4199548],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6463219/barbara-matthews-law-v-halbert-grant-law-jr/","attorney":"","caseName":"Barbara Matthews Law v. Halbert Grant Law, Jr.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6463219,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-04-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2021-00206-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":63266377,"judge":"Judge Kristi M. Davis","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:45:58.808589Z","date_created":"2022-04-27T13:12:21.150371Z","score":{"bm25":34.027466}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1053804,1055264,1057654,1057827,1058702,1060859,1060982,1068892,1078827,1081969,1377348,1476946,1503771,1507097,1526510,1574291,1743344,1774520,2103896,2405716,2435345,2463878],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/e2021-206_law_v._law.pdf","id":6335330,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/04/26/barbara_matthews_law_v._halbert_grant_law_jr..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T06:31:07.047430Z","date_created":"2022-04-27T13:12:21.159041Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ed2e58a9c02ec63c1d6147b1d07e6f59ecefe2c1","snippet":"                                                                                            04/26/2022\n                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                           AT KNOXVILLE\n                                December 1, 2021 Session\n\n      BARBARA MATTHEWS LAW v. HALBERT GRANT LAW, JR.\n\n                Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County\n                 No. 17-0883       Jeffrey M. Atherton, Chancellor\n                      ___________________________________\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6335330],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"On May 1, 1992, Barbara Matthews Law (\"Wife\") and Halbert Grant Law, Jr. (\"Husband\"), executed a prenuptial agreement. They married the following day. Wife filed for divorce in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County in December of 2017. The parties disputed, inter alia, the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement, as well as the classification and division of several assets. Trial was held over multiple days in 2019 and 2020, and the trial court entered its final decree divorcing the parties on July 31, 2020. The trial court held that the prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable, classified the parties' assets, and divided the marital estate. Wife was awarded the parties' family home and $4,500.00 per month in alimony in futuro. Husband appeals, challenging the classification of the parties' home as marital property, as well as the classification of one bank account. Wife cross-appeals, challenging the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement and the classification of several assets. Wife also requests increased alimony. We affirm the trial court's finding that the parties' prenuptial agreement is valid and enforceable. We reverse the trial court's classification of three assets – the parties' home, a checking account, and an investment account. We vacate the trial court's decision as to those three assets and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. In light of the changes in classification of several major assets, we also vacate and remand the trial court's award of alimony for reconsideration."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4471955/amended-july-10-2017-iowa-supreme-court-commission-on-the-unauthorized/","attorney":"","caseName":"Amended July 10, 2017 Iowa Supreme Court Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law v. Raymond William Sullins","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4471955,"court":"Supreme Court of Iowa","court_citation_string":"Iowa","court_id":"iowa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-04-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"15–1081","docket_id":6318823,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:54:42.184787Z","date_created":"2018-02-28T21:16:04.634877Z","score":{"bm25":33.92156}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1250676,1252967,1311846,1346020,1347888,1383157,1418383,1689462,1697132,1703984,1714313,1758765,1828707,1835154,1866772,1901193,1926461,1994495,2021889,2037155,2153553,2175465,2183644,2194336,2218523,2219082,2221611,2227701,2604142,3430001,3432848,3523756],"download_url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/static/media/documents/151081_FD46AA23737DA.pdf","id":4249208,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/04/07/amended_july_10_2017_iowa_supreme_court_commission_on_the_unauthorized.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:41:04.510357Z","date_created":"2018-02-28T21:16:04.640906Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6f2812f3d4d4a887ce2ce70f303099e95299857f","snippet":"              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA\n                               No. 15–1081\n\n                            Filed April 7, 2017\n\n                          Amended July 10, 2017\n\n\nIOWA SUPREME COURT COMMISSION\nON THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW,\n\n      Appellee,\n\nvs.\n\nRAYMOND WILLIAM SULLINS,\n\n      Appellant.\n\n\n\n      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Emmet County, Duane E.\n\nHoffmeyer, Chief Judge.\n\n\n\n      Disbarred attorney appeals district court order enjoining him from\n\nthe una","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4249208],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10281330/in-re-criminal-complaint-application-for-arrest-warrant/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Criminal Complaint & Application for Arrest Warrant","caseNameFull":"","citation":["350 Conn. 633"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":10281330,"court":"Supreme Court of Connecticut","court_citation_string":"Conn.","court_id":"conn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC20995","docket_id":69235632,"judge":"McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-02T02:18:53.355922Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T17:04:27.900140Z","score":{"bm25":33.909286}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR350/CR350.59E.pdf","id":10747917,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/26/in_re_criminal_complaint__application_for_arrest_warrant_concurrence.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T18:33:12.344433Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T17:04:27.176484Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7dd1b695415495976719e22a6dd904d3895be16b","snippet":"************************************************\n   The “officially released” date that appears near the\nbeginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be\npublished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it\nis released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the\nbeginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-\nion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-\ncially released” date appearing in the opinion.\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncor","type":"concurrence-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR349/CR349.59E.pdf","id":10598335,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/07/01/in_re_criminal_complaint__application_for_arrest_warrant_concurrence.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T15:55:14.525355Z","date_created":"2024-10-08T18:05:00.987938Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"13c360d9d9de2ecec1bc6d62442d9648f2bbe798","snippet":"************************************************\n   The “officially released” date that appears near the\nbeginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be\npublished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it\nis released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the\nbeginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-\nion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-\ncially released” date appearing in the opinion.\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncor","type":"concurrence-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR350/CR350.59.pdf","id":10747918,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/26/in_re_criminal_complaint__application_for_arrest_warrant.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T18:33:12.410877Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T17:04:27.901780Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ed85b0a351022ce941a53ca08b8b0458d13280e2","snippet":"************************************************\n   The “officially released” date that appears near the\nbeginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be\npublished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it\nis released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the\nbeginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-\nion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-\ncially released” date appearing in the opinion.\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncor","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR349/CR349.59.pdf","id":10598336,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/07/01/in_re_criminal_complaint__application_for_arrest_warrant.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T15:55:14.576968Z","date_created":"2024-10-08T18:05:01.665475Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f7aff42824ff9c1a27e8eaa8ea85cfea89ce8ac4","snippet":"************************************************\n   The “officially released” date that appears near the\nbeginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be\npublished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it\nis released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the\nbeginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-\nion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-\ncially released” date appearing in the opinion.\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncor","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":11298905,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/03/in_re_criminal_complaint__application_for_arrest_warrant.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-02T02:24:05.202611Z","date_created":"2026-04-02T02:17:53.434403Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4f89009e973e09831b1175870bfef5e11e16c6bb","snippet":"November 26, 2024               CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       Page 79\n\n\n\n\n         350 Conn. 633              NOVEMBER, 2024                                   633\n                 In re Criminal Complaint & Application for Arrest Warrant\n\n\n          IN RE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION\n                     FOR ARREST WARRANT\n                          (SC 20995)\n              McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Ecker, Alexander and Dannehy, Js.*\n\n                      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Writ of error from the order of the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, T. Welch, J., denying applications by the plaintiffs in error for certain arrest warrants, brought to the Appellate Court, where the writ was transferred to this court; thereafter, this court denied This case originally was argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker, Alexander and Dannehy. Thereafter, Chief Justice Robinson retired from this court and did not participate in the consideration of the case. The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. October 3, 2024, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes. 634 NOVEMBER, 2024 350 Conn. 633 In re Criminal Complaint & Application for Arrest Warrant the defendant in error's motion to dismiss. Writ of error dismissed. Cameron L. Atkinson, for the plaintiffs in error (Albert Bottone et al.). Evan O'Roark, assistant solicitor general, with whom were Timothy F. Costello, supervisory assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, William Tong, attorney gen- eral, and Patrick J. Griffin, chief state's attorney, for the defendant in error (state).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11298905,10747918,10747917,10598336,10598335],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiffs in error, three registered electors residing in the city of Bridge- port, filed a writ of error challenging the decision of a trial judge, who denied their applications, filed pursuant to statute (§ 9-368), for arrest warrants for two individuals who had allegedly violated certain election laws in connec- tion with the 2023 Democratic primary election for the office of the mayor of Bridgeport. The plaintiffs in error claimed, inter alia, that the trial judge had misinterpreted § 9-368, whereas the defendant in error, the state of Connecticut, claimed that the writ of error should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs in error were neither statutorily nor classically aggrieved by the denial of the arrest warrant applications. Held: The plaintiffs in error were not required to establish that they were statutorily aggrieved in order to bring a writ of error challenging the denial of their arrest warrant applications. This court dismissed the writ of error because the plaintiffs in error were not classically aggrieved by the trial judge's denial of the arrest warrant applications, insofar as they lacked a specific, personal and legal interest in the arrest and prosecution of those who allegedly violate election laws. (One justice concurring separately) Argued May 1—officially released October 3, 2024"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4545118/in-re-complaint-of-judicial-misconduct/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct","caseNameFull":"","citation":["906 F.3d 1167"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4545118,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","court_citation_string":"9th Cir.","court_id":"ca9","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-10-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"18-90084","docket_id":8048129,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:14:50.695682Z","date_created":"2018-10-18T17:00:27.870943Z","score":{"bm25":33.337326}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[110339,112616,779694,1190218],"download_url":"http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/10/18/18-90084.pdf","id":4322371,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/10/18/in_re_complaint_of_judicial_misconduct.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:32:10.231375Z","date_created":"2018-10-18T17:00:27.880803Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3fe5f78d8a7da9cf2909d3c4e7c2fe2f835e7b81","snippet":"                    FOR PUBLICATION\n\n               JUDICIAL COUNCIL\n              OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n IN RE COMPLAINT OF                         No. 18-90084\n JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT\n                                               ORDER\n\n                    Filed October 18, 2018\n\n\n                            ORDER\n\nTHOMAS, Chief Judge:\n\n    Complainant, a paralegal assisting an attorney in a\nprisoner civil rights action, has filed a complaint of judicial\nmisconduct against a district judge. Rev","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4322371],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5044173/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure/","attorney":"Elizabeth Ann Blackburn, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Revis & Blackburn, P.A., Daytona Beach, FL; Mary Louise Miller Wagstaff, Past Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Wagstaff Law Office, P.A., Largo, FL; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and Ellen H. Sloyer, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.","caseName":"In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure","caseNameFull":"In re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE","citation":["154 So. 3d 301"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5044173,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-12-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC14-236","docket_id":60294020,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:29:12.747826Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T01:04:37.442578Z","score":{"bm25":32.435005}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4858020,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:09:16.608357Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T01:04:37.465375Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nThe Family Law Rules Committee (Committee) has filed its regular-cycle report proposing amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure.1 The Committee proposes new rules 12.012 (Minimization of Sensitive Information) and 12.364 (Social Investigations). It also proposes amendments to rules 12.070 (Process); 12.200 (Case Management and Pretrial Conferences); 12.363 (Evaluation ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4858020],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7857581/silverman-v-eccleston-law-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Silverman v. Eccleston Law, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":["173 N.Y.S.3d 78","208 A.D.3d 705","2022 NY Slip Op 04991"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":7857581,"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":"2022-08-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 605519/20","docket_id":64899946,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:23:59.673101Z","date_created":"2022-08-17T19:08:17.072617Z","score":{"bm25":31.644888}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2086789,2123647,3172632,4553438,4569037,5538561,5727454,5798163,5828271,5878417,5954926,6027634],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_04991.htm","id":7801447,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2022/08/17/silverman_v._eccleston_law_llc.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T06:49:16.805180Z","date_created":"2022-08-17T19:08:17.074433Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9c0b889d76031b149681f9fd0f7c174f85071baa","snippet":"\n\nSilverman v Eccleston Law, LLC (2022 NY Slip Op 04991)\n\n\n\n\n\nSilverman v Eccleston Law, LLC\n\n\n2022 NY Slip Op 04991\n\n\nDecided on August 17, 2022\n\n\nAppellate Division, Second Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judici","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7801447],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9475509/calabrese-law-firm-v-christie/","attorney":"","caseName":"Calabrese Law Firm v. Christie","caseNameFull":"","citation":["236 N.E.3d 388","2024 Ohio 579"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":9475509,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"112736","docket_id":68254449,"judge":"Keough","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T17:48:53.588542Z","date_created":"2024-02-15T18:12:18.609360Z","score":{"bm25":31.469597}},"neutralCite":"2024 Ohio 579","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8108,"cites":[2690817,2693052,2701410,2703366,2703643,2704070,2762322,3194249,3691610,3698713,3717513,3720848,3739718,3746266,3784494,4519259,4554865,4675020,6113265,6324324,6344338,6344350,6758337,6759890,6759993,6762353,6762996,6763697,6771629,6776598,6781417,6782920,6786998,6790371,6793513,8414152,9835691,9882754,9894859,11149940,11150041,11151936,11152959],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2024/2024-Ohio-579.pdf","id":9941040,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/02/15/calabrese_law_firm_v._christie.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T09:55:07.572375Z","date_created":"2024-02-15T18:12:18.634262Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6d460f6872516444264407a47ba7639afb71f7f8","snippet":"[Cite as Calabrese Law Firm v. Christie, 2024-Ohio-579.]\n\n                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA\n\nTHE CALABRESE LAW FIRM,                               :\n\n                Plaintiff-Appellee/                   :\n                Cross-Appellant,                             No. 112736\n                                                      :\n                v.\n                   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9941040],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Res judicata individual capacity limited liability company settlement and release manifest weight of the evidence hearsay App.R. 16(D) damages setoff to jury award breach of contract attorney fees contingency fee agreement lodestar prejudgment interest. - Jury verdict finding that defendant breached a sublease with plaintiff affirmed and trial court's award of attorney fees in favor of plaintiff affirmed. Plaintiff's earlier settlement with other signatories on the sublease was not res judicata to plaintiff's claims against defendant, who signed the sublease in his individual capacity plaintiff could bring its breach-of-contract claim as a limited liability company plaintiff's settlement and release of defendant in an unrelated lawsuit did not bar plaintiff's claims against defendant in this case the jury's verdict finding that defendant breached the sublease was not against the manifest weight of the evidence defendant did not support his argument that two witnesses gave hearsay testimony by reference to the record as required by App.R. 16(D) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of damages to support the jury's damages award plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party because the sublease expressly provided that plaintiff could recover its attorney fees upon defendant's breach of the sublease trial court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding the total amount of attorney fees requested by plaintiff because the court could properly consider that counsel had a contingency fee agreement with plaintiff trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest because a party granted judgment on a contract claim is entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of law."}]}