{"count":1505769,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0zOS4wMzU0NDImcz0yNjY1MDc5JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDgtMjUmcD0y&q=APPLICATION+FOR+RECEIVER&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10635062/reconsidering-the-application-of-the-hyde-amendment-to-the-provision-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Reconsidering the Application of the Hyde Amendment to the Provision of Transportation for Women Seeking Abortions","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10635062,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":70825691,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:17.544449Z","date_created":"2025-07-17T15:00:19.212107Z","score":{"bm25":74.96221}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[17269,96136,110334,117884,145769,217139,868381,3203624,4246855,4248498,4373127,4382632,6347223,6496704,7863079,9418277,9426436,9426610,9428058,9432802,9433635,9527063,9812687,9814732,9820316,9889171],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1408241/dl","id":11101649,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/11/reconsidering_the_application_of_the_hyde_amendment_to_the_provision_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T23:10:16.108710Z","date_created":"2025-07-17T15:00:19.221831Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"35bd167162cc9e354e2879adccabd72463711688","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\nReconsidering the Application of the Hyde Amendment to the\n Provision of Transportation for Women Seeking Abortions\nThis Office concluded in 2022 that the Hyde Amendment does not bar the Department of\n  Health and Human Services from expending covered funds to provide transportation\n  for women seeking abortions. Having been asked to reconsider, we now conclude that\n  the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to provide ancillary services\n  necessary to receive an abo","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11101649],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This Office concluded in 2022 that the Hyde Amendment does not bar the Department of Health and Human Services from expending covered funds to provide transportation for women seeking abortions. Having been asked to reconsider, we now conclude that the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to provide ancillary services necessary to receive an abortion."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9447089/application-of-howie-for-admission-to-the-bar/","attorney":"","caseName":"Application of Howie for Admission to the Bar","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9447089,"court":"Court of Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md.","court_id":"md","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-11-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"62m/22","docket_id":68038400,"judge":"Order","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:18:44.526950Z","date_created":"2023-11-28T14:05:00.920197Z","score":{"bm25":47.35684}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1989942,2051629,2763430,4028122,7918740,7919385,7920764],"download_url":"http://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2023/62a22m.pdf","id":9904914,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/11/28/application_of_howie_for_admission_to_the_bar.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:20:27.850153Z","date_created":"2023-11-28T14:05:00.930153Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"cafc0bda2f9e739282b464d0496e647055c254aa","snippet":"Argued: September 8, 2023\n                                                                        IN THE SUPREME COURT\n\n                                                                              OF MARYLAND\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 Misc. No. 62\n\n                                                                            September Term, 2022\n\n\n\n\n                                                                IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLI","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9904914],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8443097/application-of-the-anti-terrorism-act-of-1987-to-diplomatic-visit-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Application of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 to Diplomatic Visit of Palestinian Delegation","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8443097,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-10-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":65662208,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:13.305644Z","date_created":"2022-11-02T21:00:07.523910Z","score":{"bm25":46.57161}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[102726,2346009,9418915,9426961,9808243],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1548981/download","id":8414435,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/10/28/application_of_the_anti-terrorism_act_of_1987_to_diplomatic_visit_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T04:07:38.635439Z","date_created":"2022-11-02T21:00:07.532749Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3dec5cb2ae447b5b7474b384c2ec00de55b4ce9d","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n         Application of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 to\n           Diplomatic Visit of Palestinian Delegation\nSection 1003(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, which prohibits the expenditure of\n   funds from the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United States to further the\n   PLO’s interests, is unconstitutional to the extent it prevents the exercise of the Presi-\n   dent’s Article II authorities to receive public ministers and to determine the manner in\n   which the ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8414435],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Section 1003(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, which prohibits the expenditure of funds from the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United States to further the PLO's interests, is unconstitutional to the extent it prevents the exercise of the Presi-dent's Article II authorities to receive public ministers and to determine the manner in which the Executive engages in diplomacy with foreign representatives. The ATA therefore does not prevent PLO representatives invited by the State Department to Washington, D.C., from spending PLO funds to attend diplomatic meetings with Ex-ecutive Branch officials, including for expenses that are necessary incidents to those meetings."},{"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":0,"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":46.55571}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"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/CR350.59E.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":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/5299396/in-re-application-for-a-tax-deed/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Application for a Tax Deed","caseNameFull":"","citation":["183 N.E.3d 688","451 Ill. Dec. 231","2021 IL 126150"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":5299396,"court":"Illinois Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ill.","court_id":"ill","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-06-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"126150","docket_id":61565603,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:28:05.306216Z","date_created":"2021-11-20T02:05:18.876530Z","score":{"bm25":46.332706}},"neutralCite":"2021 IL 126150","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2015798,2028251,2046112,2056193,2071605,2091881,2219936,2253478,3168307,3414303,4251594,4251596],"download_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/f019c56a-f524-4847-a275-75fe4f6c8bad/file","id":5127958,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/06/17/in_re_application_for_a_tax_deed.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:28:05.112307Z","date_created":"2021-11-20T02:05:18.879552Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"960f467fd2b579f542dec6a8aa5b5031fa830c1b","snippet":"                                      2021 IL 126150\n\n\n\n                                        IN THE\n                               SUPREME COURT\n                                            OF\n                         THE STATE OF ILLINOIS\n\n\n\n\n                                   (Docket No. 126150)\n\n     In re APPLICATION FOR A TAX DEED (SI Resources, LLC, et al., Appellants,\n                       v. Opal Castleman et al., Appellees).\n\n                                Opinion filed June 17, 202","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5127958],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4878046/in-re-application-for-a-tax-deed/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Application for a Tax Deed","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 IL App (5th) 190168"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4878046,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-04-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"5-19-0168","docket_id":59861455,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:48:22.463408Z","date_created":"2021-04-28T19:04:05.136617Z","score":{"bm25":46.182934}},"neutralCite":"2020 IL App (5th) 190168","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2071605,2200563,2207989,3168306,4224689],"download_url":"http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2020/5thDistrict/5190168.pdf","id":4681825,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/04/28/in_re_application_for_a_tax_deed.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T19:56:46.605818Z","date_created":"2021-04-28T19:04:05.151449Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c77016cb511c0a301018b3383e997b052929bea0","snippet":"                                                                           Digitally signed by\n                                                                           Reporter of\n                                                                           Decisions\n                                                                           Reason: I attest to\n                          Illinois Official Reports                        the accuracy and\n                                              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4681825],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8247290/capital-for-change-inc-v-board-of-assessment-appeals/","attorney":"","caseName":"Capital for Change, Inc. v. Board of Assessment Appeals","caseNameFull":"","citation":["215 Conn. App. 681"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8247290,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-10-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC44404","docket_id":65407804,"judge":"Alvord; Prescott; DiPentima","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:29.566249Z","date_created":"2022-10-07T12:01:46.416992Z","score":{"bm25":46.084034}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[4561426,4659425,5140768,7847320,7848694,9635059],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP215/215AP359.pdf","id":8212553,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/10/11/capital_for_change_inc._v._board_of_assessment_appeals.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T06:43:34.387366Z","date_created":"2022-10-07T12:01:46.419874Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8cda4240d20e1229da84bc5d300f751f57686e3c","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Appeal from the decision of the defendant affirming the decision of the defendant's tax assessor denying the plaintiff's application for a charitable tax exemption with respect to certain real property, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven and tried to the court, Hon. Jon C. Blue, judge trial referee; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Lori Welch-Rubin, with whom was J. Michael Sulz- bach, for the appellant (plaintiff). Janis M. Small, corporation counsel, for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8212553],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the decision by the defendant board of assessment appeals upholding the denial of the plaintiff's appli- cation for a charitable organization real property tax exemption pursuant to statute (§ 12-81 (7)). The plaintiff, a tax-exempt charitable organiza- tion for federal tax purposes, used the subject property to engage in commercial lending, consumer lending, loan servicing and third-party contract administration. The plaintiff provided to developers and home- owners financial services, inter alia, to improve and increase the supply of affordable housing and, through a subsidiary, contracted with utility companies to administer energy efficient loan programs. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the appeal from the board's decision, and the plaintiff appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court improperly concluded that, because it is not organized exclusively and the property is not used exclusively for charitable purposes, the property is not tax-exempt pursuant to § 12-81 (7). Held that the trial court prop- erly dismissed the plaintiff's appeal from the board's decision: pursuant to § 12-81 (7) and as required by the test set forth in Isaiah 61:1, Inc. v. Bridgeport (270 Conn. 69), and further explicated in St. Joseph's Living Center, Inc. v. Windham (290 Conn. 695), for a property to receive a charitable tax-exempt status, it must be owned by or be held in trust for a corporation organized exclusively for charitable purposes and used exclusively for carrying out one or more of such purposes, and the undisputed evidence demonstrated that the subject property was not used exclusively for charitable purposes as the plaintiff's activities involved in administering energy efficient loan programs at the subject property, including marketing, intake and processing of applications, reporting to investors, and collecting delinquent accounts for utility companies, benefited consumers, commercial entities and industrial customers without the imposition of income limitations and any demon- stration of financial need and, thus, were not charitable. Argued May 25—officially released October 11, 2022"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9402906/barbara-carraway-v-albert-black-as-receiver-for-3-judge-dupree/","attorney":"","caseName":"Barbara Carraway v. Albert Black as Receiver for 3 Judge Dupree","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9402906,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Dallas","court_id":"txctapp5","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-05-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"05-22-00598-CV","docket_id":67452875,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:06:23.930354Z","date_created":"2023-05-31T06:10:00.647090Z","score":{"bm25":45.739834}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2352903],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=37617&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa05%5cOpinion","id":9398382,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/05/26/barbara_carraway_v._albert_black_as_receiver_for_3_judge_dupree.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:06:24.014100Z","date_created":"2023-05-31T06:10:00.649584Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4c34e541193f8df1503902c5f2b68d5e62c07ae7","snippet":"Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 26, 2023\n\n\n\n\n                                       In The\n                            Court of Appeals\n                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas\n                               No. 05-22-00598-CV\n\n                   BARBARA CARRAWAY, Appellant\n                                 V.\n                    ALBERT BLACK AS RECEIVER\n                FOR 3304 JUDGE DUPREE DRIVE, Appellee\n\n                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5\n                ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9398382],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4832770/in-re-application-for-a-tax-deed/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Application for a Tax Deed","caseNameFull":"","citation":["445 Ill. Dec. 314","166 N.E.3d 744","2020 IL App (5th) 190168"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4832770,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-06-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"5-19-0168","docket_id":18687582,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:03:39.541205Z","date_created":"2020-11-24T22:38:00.961413Z","score":{"bm25":45.08664}},"neutralCite":"2020 IL App (5th) 190168","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2071605,2200563,2207989,3168306,4224689],"download_url":"http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2020/5thDistrict/5190168.pdf","id":4636549,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/06/02/in_re_application_for_a_tax_deed.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:03:39.489441Z","date_created":"2020-11-24T22:38:00.964197Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"970d92866efe8cf02278f4a57dd9fe9f98a4961f","snippet":"                                      2020 IL App (5th) 190168\n            NOTICE\n Decision filed 06/02/20. The\n text of this decision may be              NO. 5-19-0168\n changed or corrected prior to\n the filing of a Petition for\n                                               IN THE\n Rehearing or the disposition of\n the same.\n                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS\n\n                               FIFTH DISTRICT\n______________________________________________________________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4636549],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10680572/in-re-application-for-correction-of-birth-record-of-adelaide/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Application for Correction of Birth Record of Adelaide","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 Ohio 5393","177 Ohio St. 3d 281"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10680572,"court":"Ohio Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ohio","court_id":"ohio","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-11-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2022-0934","docket_id":69388361,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-30T02:16:13.206694Z","date_created":"2025-09-30T02:16:09.219630Z","score":{"bm25":43.92721}},"neutralCite":"2024 Ohio 5393","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[84759,1503769,2690857,2692331,2812209,2935895,3770966,3782710,3785567,4345574,4571766,4684475,4703080,4924198,6316245,6329941,6350835,6754418,6754987,6756858,6762913,6763081,7972004,8415682,9346329,9371433,9372381,9515913,9801907,9805377,9887395,9887783,9889182,9911528,9948754,10743767,11147674,11147709,11151491,11152264,11152698,11152864,11153391],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2024/2024-Ohio-5393.pdf","id":11147159,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/19/in_re_application_for_correction_of_birth_record_of_adelaide_2.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T09:42:52.657037Z","date_created":"2025-09-30T02:16:09.270952Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"868a041f424fbd4764f31d5e71384e0cbb175b6b","snippet":"[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 177 Ohio St.3d 281.]\n\n\n\n\n    IN RE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF BIRTH RECORD OF ADELAIDE.\n      [Cite as In re Application for Correction of Birth Record of Adelaide,\n                                    2024-Ohio-5393.]\nCourt of appeals’ judgment left undisturbed in the absence of a majority to render\n        a judgment.\n   (No. 2022-0934—Submitted April 4, 2023—Decided November 19, 2024.)\n                APPEAL from the Court of Appe","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2024/2024-Ohio-5393.pdf","id":11080325,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/19/in_re_application_for_correction_of_birth_record_of_adelaide_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T21:02:12.383589Z","date_created":"2025-06-19T16:19:47.751863Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"80949ebc4c9925507ce434aab921cc101969aac2","snippet":"[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 177 Ohio St.3d 281.]\n\n\n\n\n    IN RE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF BIRTH RECORD OF ADELAIDE.\n      [Cite as In re Application for Correction of Birth Record of Adelaide,\n                                    2024-Ohio-5393.]\nCourt of appeals’ judgment left undisturbed in the absence of a majority to render\n        a judgment.\n   (No. 2022-0934—Submitted April 4, 2023—Decided November 19, 2024.)\n                APPEAL from the Court of Appe","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11147159,11080325],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Court of appeals' judgment left undisturbed in the absence of a majority to render a judgment."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7324332/in-re-application-for-a-search-warrant/","attorney":"Jeannice Williams Appenteng, Northern District of Illinois, AUSA, United States Attorney’s Office,, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.","caseName":"In re Application for a Search Warrant","caseNameFull":"IN RE APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT","citation":["236 F. Supp. 3d 1066","2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23861","2017 WL 758218"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":7324332,"court":"District Court, N.D. Illinois","court_citation_string":"N.D. Ill.","court_id":"ilnd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-02-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case Number 17M081","docket_id":64312815,"judge":"Weisman","lexisCite":"2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23861","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:37:46.321354Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T05:02:08.034120Z","score":{"bm25":43.92588}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7242243,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:35:20.868333Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T05:02:08.040415Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION AND ORDER\nM. David Weisman, United States Magistrate Judge\nThe government has presented an application for a search and seizure warrant to seize various items presumed to be located at a particularly identified location (hereinafter “subject premises”). The warrant further requests the authority to seize various items (identified in Attachment B of the warrant application), including various fo","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7242243],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10277177/in-re-application-for-correction-of-birth-record-of-adelaide/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Application for Correction of Birth Record of Adelaide","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 Ohio 5393"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":10277177,"court":"Ohio Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ohio","court_id":"ohio","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-11-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2022-0934","docket_id":69388361,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-19T14:09:16.196588Z","date_created":"2024-11-19T14:09:16.100295Z","score":{"bm25":43.554337}},"neutralCite":"2024 Ohio 5393","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[84759,945737,1503769,2690857,2691588,2692331,2812209,2935895,3782710,3785567,4345574,4571766,4684475,4703080,4924198,6316245,6329941,6350835,6754418,6754987,6756858,6762913,6763081,7972004,8415682,9346329,9371433,9372381,9911528,9927137,9948044,9948754],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2024/2024-Ohio-5393.pdf","id":10743767,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/19/in_re_application_for_correction_of_birth_record_of_adelaide.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T12:36:23.159927Z","date_created":"2024-11-19T14:09:16.125625Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9cea7e44a139c559a75b5a0a4ba4f9edb4014526","snippet":"[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In\nre Application for Correction of Birth Record of Adelaide, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5393.]\n\n\n\n\n                                         NOTICE\n     This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an\n     advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to\n     promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65\n     South Front Street, Colum","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10743767],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Court of appeals' judgment left undisturbed in the absence of a majority to render a judgment."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4588123/in-re-application-for-a-tax-deed/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Application for a Tax Deed","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2018 IL App (5th) 170170"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4588123,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-02-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"5-17-0170","docket_id":14537960,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:27:18.327847Z","date_created":"2019-02-06T22:06:59.564564Z","score":{"bm25":43.51051}},"neutralCite":"2018 IL App (5th) 170170","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2046273,2213097],"download_url":"http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2018/5thDistrict/5170170.pdf","id":4365376,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/02/06/in_re_application_for_a_tax_deed.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:02:04.596607Z","date_created":"2019-02-06T22:06:59.576206Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"97f3538760c36118582458683337b104750e1381","snippet":"                                                                                 Digitally signed by\n                                                                                 Reporter of Decisions\n                                                                                 Reason: I attest to the\n                              Illinois Official Reports                          accuracy and\n                                                                                 integrity of thi","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4365376],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7334990/ctr-for-biological-diversity-v-zinke/","attorney":"*167Anna Elizabeth Frostic, Humane Society Of The United States, Washington, DC, Sarah Uhlemann, Tanya Sanerib, Center for Biological Diversity, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs., Andrea Gelatt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants., Anna Margo Seidman, Douglas Scott Burdin, Jeremy Evan Clare, Safari Club International, Washington, DC, Christopher A. Conte, Michael T. Jean, National Rifle Association of America, Fairfax, VA, for Defendant-Intervenors., ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, United States District Judge *168In Fall 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the \"Service\") issued two new findings with respect to elephants and lions in Zimbabwe. By determining that permitted hunting of these animals will enhance the survival of each species, the country-wide findings paved the way for U.S. importation of sport-hunted trophies of these animals. After the D.C. Circuit held in December 2017 that two earlier country-wide enhancement findings by the Service were legislative rules requiring public notice and comment pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (\"APA\"), see Safari Club Int'l v. Zinke, 878 F.3d 316, 331-35 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (\" Safari Club II \"), the Service withdrew the 2017 Zimbabwe elephant and lion findings, along with other prior country-wide enhancement and non-detriment findings. Moving forward, the Service announced that it would instead make these findings on a case-by-case basis upon application to import a sport-hunted trophy., Organizational plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity (the \"Center\"), Humane Society International (\"HIS\"), Humane Society of the United States (\"HSUS\"), and Born Free USA, along with individual plaintiff Ian Michler (collectively, \"plaintiffs\") bring an eight-count complaint challenging the actions of the government. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 41. Upon motion, Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association of America were permitted to intervene as defendants (the \"intervenor-defendants\"). Order, ECF No. 24. In claims one through six, plaintiffs challenge the now-withdrawn 2017 Zimbabwe elephant and lion findings. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 171-201. In claim seven, plaintiffs allege the Service violated the APA by withdrawing the various enhancement and non-detriment findings without soliciting public notice and comment. Id. ¶¶ 202-07. And in claim eight, plaintiffs claim the Service violated the APA by changing from country-wide findings to case-by-case determinations without soliciting public notice and comment. Id. ¶¶ 208-11, The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (\"CITES\"), Mar. 3, 1973, 27 U.S.T. 1087, is a multilateral treaty to which both the United States and Zimbabwe are parties. See 16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(1) (incorporating CITES into U.S. domestic law through the Endangered Species Act). CITES regulates the international trade of protected plants and wildlife by establishing requirements for importing and exporting covered species categorized into three appendices based on the level of protection each requires. See id. §§ 1537a-1539. Signatories to CITES, including the United States and Zimbabwe, agree that they \"shall not allow trade in specimens of species included in Appendices I, II and III except in accordance with the provisions of\" the treaty. CITES, art. II.4., \"It is undisputed that the proscriptions in [CITES] are a floor, not a ceiling, for protection of Appendix II species.\" Safari Club Int'l v. Zinke, 878 F.3d 316, 321 (D.C. Cir. 2017). In fact, the treaty makes clear that it \"in no way affect[s] the right of Parties to adopt ... stricter domestic measures regarding the conditions for trade, taking possession or transport of specimens of species included in Appendices I, II, and II, or the complete prohibition thereof.\" CITES, art. XIV(1)., To that end, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (\"ESA\") to provide for the conservation of \"endangered\" and \"threatened\" species. 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). Described as \"the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation,\" Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978), the ESA not only implements CITES into U.S. law but also provides federal protection to species listed as endangered or threatened pursuant to its provisions. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533(d), 1538(a). Furthermore, the listing of a species as endangered or threatened does not depend on whether or how it is categorized under CITES. See id. § 1533(a)(1)(A)., While the ESA generally forbids the importation of endangered species into the United States, id. § 1538(a)(1)(A) ; 50 C.F.R. § 17.21(b), the Act empowers the Service to issue regulations pertaining to threatened species \"deem[ed] necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species.\" 16 U.S.C. § 1533(d). Pursuant to this authority, the Service has issued a regulation that extends the ESA's prohibitions on endangered species to all threatened species unless the Service has issued a special rule to govern a particular species. 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.31(a), (c) ; see also Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 1993)., Both elephants and lions in Zimbabwe are listed as threatened species under the ESA, 50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h), and both are the subject of special species-specific rules for importation. Id. §§ 17.40(e) (elephants), (r) (lions)., Like for African elephants, the species-specific rule for African lions requires a hunter to apply for and receive a threatened species import permit before importing a sport-hunted African lion trophy *170from countries like Zimbabwe. 80 Fed. Reg. 80,000, 80,043 -44; 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(r)(2)-(3). Although the rule does not explicitly mention enhancement findings, the enhancement of propagation or survival is one of the purposes for which a threatened species import permit may be issued. See 50 C.F.R. § 17.32 (listing enhancement along with scientific purposes, economic hardship, zoological exhibition, educational purposes, and incidental takings as the acceptable purposes for issuing a permit). Because of the nature of sport-hunted trophy importation, a permit for lions may only be issued if the Service determines that the killing and importation enhances the survival of the species. \"The Service has the discretion to make the required findings on sport-hunted trophy imports of [African lions] on a country-wide basis, although individual import permits [are] evaluated and issued or denied for each applicant.\" 80 Fed. Reg. at 80,046., In 2014, the Service suspended importing of sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Zimbabwe, as the Service was \"unable to determine that the killing of the animal ... would enhance the survival of the species in the wild.\" 79 Fed. Reg. 44459-01. In 2015, the Service reaffirmed this decision, extending its effect indefinitely. 80 Fed. Reg. 42524-03. The intervenor-defendants challenged the 2014 and 2015 elephant findings in a case before this Court. Safari Club Int'l v. Jewell, Case No. 1:14-cv-670-RCL. Although this Court upheld the 2014 and 2015 elephant findings, see Safari Club Int'l v. Jewell, 213 F.Supp.3d 48, 81 (D.D.C. 2016), the D.C. Circuit held that the findings were legislative rules that the Service failed to subject to public notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act. Safari Club II, 878 F.3d at 333. It therefore ordered this Court to remand the case to the Service to initiate proper rulemaking to address enhancement findings for the relevant time periods. Id. at 336., But prior to the D.C. Circuit's opinion, the Service had issued the new enhancement findings at issue in this case. On October 11, 2017, the Service announced that made positive enhancement findings and would allow the import of African lion trophies hunted in Zimbabwe in calendar years 2016, 2017, and 2018. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 144. And on November 16, 2017, the Service similarly concluded that hunting elephants in Zimbabwe enhances the survival of the species, opening the door for the importation of elephant trophies hunted in 2016, 2017, and 2018. See 82 Fed. Reg. 54,405., *171the Service also withdrew the 2017 Zimbabwe lion and elephant enhancement findings challenged in this case, along with various country-wide enhancement and non-detriment findings. Intervenor-Defendants' Mot. Dismiss Ex. 1; Second Am. Compl. ¶ 168. Moreover, the March Memo announced that \"[a]t this time, when the Service processes [permit application for the importation of sport-hunted trophies of these species], the Service intends to do so on an individual basis, including making ESA enhancement determinations, and CITES non-detriment determinations when required, for each application.\" Intervenor-Defendants' Mot. Dismiss Ex. 1. In other words, the Service announced an intention \"to grant or deny permits to import a sport-hunted trophy on a case-by-case basis.\" Id. However, the March Memo makes clear that the Service intends to use the information cited in the 2017 Zimbabwe lion and elephant findings and other withdrawn findings \"as appropriate, in addition to the information it receives and has available when it receives each application, to evaluate individual permit applications.\" Id. ; Second Am. Compl. ¶ 169. The March Memo was not published in the Federal Register and the Service did not solicit public comments on the Memo. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 170., In response to the March Memo, plaintiffs amended the complaint to add two counts: a claim challenging the Service's failure to employ notice-and-comment rulemaking to withdraw the 2017 lion and elephant findings and a claim that the Service violated the APA by changing to a case-by-case approach for making enhancement and non-detriment findings without soliciting public notice and comment. Id. ¶¶ 202-211. Both the government and the defendant-intervenors move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. The defendants argue that plaintiffs' claims challenging the 2017 lion and elephant findings-claims one through six-should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while the new claims-claims six and seven-should be dismissed either under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim., When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, unlike when deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court \"is not limited to the allegations of the complaint.\" Hohri, 782 F.2d at 241. Rather, \"a court may consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question [of] whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case.\" Scolaro v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 104 F.Supp.2d 18, 22 (D.D.C. 2000) (citing Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis. , 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ); see also Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. FDA , 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005)., \"To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6) ] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' \" Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A claim is facially plausible when the pleaded factual content \"allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\" Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. \"The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.\" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 566, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). A pleading must offer more than \" 'labels and conclusions' \" or a \" 'formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,' \" id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ), and \"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.\" Id.","caseName":"Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke","caseNameFull":"CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. Ryan ZINKE, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Interior, and Safari Club International, Defendant-Intervenors","citation":["369 F. Supp. 3d 164"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":7334990,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-03-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 17-cv-2504-RCL","docket_id":64323476,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:40:31.212217Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:17:36.565445Z","score":{"bm25":42.907207}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7252910,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:54:51.014479Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:17:36.576491Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nWhen considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint is construed liberally in the plaintiff's favor, and the Court should grant the plaintiff \"the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.\" Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp. , 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Nevertheless, the Court ne","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7252910],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4888585/cynthia-eyebuah-v-center-for-urological-treatment-plc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Cynthia E.Yebuah v. Center For Urological Treatment, PLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4888585,"court":"Tennessee Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Tenn.","court_id":"tenn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-06-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2018-01652-SC-R11-CV","docket_id":59956578,"judge":"Justice Roger A. Page","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:51:02.729441Z","date_created":"2021-06-02T21:15:07.318228Z","score":{"bm25":42.834644}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1054540,1057595,1057635,1057668,1057669,1057697,1057734,1058266,1058714,1060455,1060615,1061002,1061048,1112211,1495140,1774157,1775776,2100576,2104476,2364079,2426632],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/yebuahcynthia.opn_.pdf","id":4692364,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/06/02/cynthia_e.yebuah_v._center_for_urological_treatment_plc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:03:38.470023Z","date_created":"2021-06-02T21:15:07.329400Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f71ae00cc655c290c8d3284e1370ada137b82b29","snippet":"                                                                                                     06/02/2021\n                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE\n                                    January 6, 2021 Session1\n\n       CYNTHIA E. YEBUAH, ET AL. v. CENTER FOR UROLOGICAL\n                       TREATMENT, PLC\n\n                     Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals\n                          Circuit Court for Davidson County\n                       No. 14C4972 Joseph P. Bin","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4692364],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This is a healthcare liability action involving the application of the statutory cap on noneconomic damages to loss of consortium claims. The issue before the Court is whether the statutory cap on noneconomic damages applies separately to a spouse's loss of consortium claim pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102, thus allowing each plaintiff to receive an award of up to $750,000 in noneconomic damages. Here, the surgery patient filed suit for noneconomic damages resulting from the defendant physicians' negligence, namely that a portion of a Gelport device was unintentionally left in her body after surgery. In the same suit, the patient's spouse claimed damages for loss of consortium. The jury awarded the patient $4,000,000 in damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The jury also awarded her husband $500,000 in damages for loss of consortium. The trial court initially applied the statutory cap on noneconomic damages by entering a judgment in favor of both plaintiffs collectively for a total judgment of $750,000. However, the trial court subsequently granted the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend and applied the statutory cap to each plaintiff separately, thereby entering a judgment of $750,000 for the patient and $500,000 for her husband. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold that the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102 allows both plaintiffs to recover only $750,000 in the aggregate for noneconomic damages. We therefore reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals and the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2812753/avery-v-fdic-as-receiver-for-netbank-business-finance/","attorney":"Patrick C. Horrell, Rosenau & Rosenau, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff., Lori ,J. Searcy, Searcy. Business Litigation & Employment Law, LLC, Alexandria, VA, for Defendant.","caseName":"Avery v. Fdic as Receiver for Netbank Business Finance","caseNameFull":"William AVERY, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Net-Bank Business Finance, Defendant","citation":["113 F. Supp. 3d 116","2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83837"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":2812753,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-06-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2015-0150","docket_id":2669356,"judge":"Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly","lexisCite":"2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83837","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:55:03.292971Z","date_created":"2015-06-29T20:11:44.494046Z","score":{"bm25":40.994717}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[117845,185958,186549,186899,219631,697608,753672,1467103,2797292],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv0150-19","id":2812753,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/06/29/avery_v._fdic_as_receiver_for_netbank_business_finance.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T23:34:04.569749Z","date_created":"2015-06-29T20:02:54.716281Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6f0901727b5ff43fbcbaf56b37921d37b43d2f95","snippet":"\n\n\n  MEMORANDUM OPINION\n \n\n  COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge\n \n\n  Plaintiff William Avery filed suit in the D;C. Superior Court against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for NetBank Business Finance seeking to recover damages resulting from Net-Bank’s allegedly fraudulent conduct in qualifying him for a loan and subsequently des","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2812753],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10664838/in-re-application-of-pioneer-mill-company-limited-ica-mem-op-filed/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re: Application of Pioneer Mill Company, Limited. ICA mem. op., filed 06/21/2024 [ada], 154 Haw. 404. Motions for Reconsideration, filed 07/01/2024. ICA Order, filed 07/08/2024 [ada]. Motion for Reconsideration, filed 07/22/2024. Motion for Reconsideration, filed 08/09/2024. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/14/2024. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/15/2024. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/09/2024 [ada]. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/09/2024 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 11/21/2024. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 11/27/2024 [ada]. Motion for Reconsideration, filed 11/27/2024. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Motion for Reconsideration, filed 12/27/2024 [ada].","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10664838,"court":"Hawaii Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Haw.","court_id":"haw","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-09-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SCWC-19-0000704","docket_id":69242047,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-02T21:05:18.884906Z","date_created":"2025-09-02T21:05:17.858994Z","score":{"bm25":39.787304}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SCWC-19-0000704.pdf","id":11131336,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/09/02/in_re_application_of_pioneer_mill_company_limited._ica_mem._op._filed.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T21:54:13.109915Z","date_created":"2025-09-02T19:05:34.599567Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"66d1de55a873cade2c9231e9c21cd07a227fd063","snippet":" ** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **\n\n\n\n\n                                                     Electronically Filed\n                                                     Supreme Court\n                                                     SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                                     02-SEP-2025\n                                                     08:43 AM\n                                                     Dkt. 133 OP\n           IN THE SUPREM","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[93564,872360,1251439,1773683,2508213,2598213,3315614,3840107,3915785,4024646,4105822,4379651,4530567,5438754,9571195,9835479],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SCWC-19-0000704.pdf","id":11131425,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/09/02/in_re_application_of_pioneer_mill_company_limited._ica_mem._op._filed_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T03:00:37.962924Z","date_created":"2025-09-02T21:05:17.864286Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e107f3b5f716f7aa10dcf5e6b861eefe7b35f3f9","snippet":" ** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **\n\n\n\n\n                                                     Electronically Filed\n                                                     Supreme Court\n                                                     SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                                     02-SEP-2025\n                                                     08:43 AM\n                                                     Dkt. 133 OP\n           IN THE SUPREM","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11131336,11131425],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4896432/in-re-application-for-access-to-certain-sealed-video-exhibits/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Application for Access to Certain Sealed Video Exhibits","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4896432,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-06-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Misc. No. 2021-0078","docket_id":60029626,"judge":"Judge John D. Bates","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:53:01.098100Z","date_created":"2021-07-01T00:01:20.413451Z","score":{"bm25":39.636345}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":201,"cites":[109830,392167,443221,715631,774021,1405994,3864699,4546528],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021mc0078-7","id":4700211,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/06/30/in_re_application_for_access_to_certain_sealed_video_exhibits.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:08:51.511788Z","date_created":"2021-07-01T00:01:20.482756Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ea2a809de4b1b33de4fe5e9d6f3769479a458636","snippet":"                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n\n\n  IN RE: APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO\n                                                                          Case No. 21-MC-78 (JDB)\n  CERTAIN SEALED VIDEO EXHIBITS\n\n\n\n\n                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION\n\n        Chief Judge Howell has issued a district-wide Standing Order that provides a process for\n\nthe media to request access to video exhibits in cri","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4700211],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Magistrate Case","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4632435/application-of-knight/","attorney":"\n  Argued by Alonya Renee Knight, for Applicant.\n ","caseName":"Application of Knight","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF the Application of Alonya Renee KNIGHT for Admission to the Bar of Maryland","citation":["211 A.3d 265","464 Md. 118"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4632435,"court":"Court of Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md.","court_id":"md","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-06-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"27m/18","docket_id":15825574,"judge":"Barbera, Greene, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Harrell, Glenn","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:40:48.325535Z","date_created":"2019-06-24T20:04:56.500958Z","score":{"bm25":39.50417}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":4695,"cites":[1940613,2064639,2171566,2295395,2296673,3484927],"download_url":"http://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2019/27a18m.pdf","id":4409688,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/06/24/application_of_knight.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:32:43.555727Z","date_created":"2019-06-24T20:04:56.522029Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e0d613e9ad1dd2c1246fcf448886bc1a49a942c1","snippet":"\n\n\n  McDonald, J.\n \n\n  Alonya Renee Knight has applied for admission to the Maryland Bar. We must decide whether to grant her application in light of the adverse recommendations of the State Board of Law Examiners (\"Board\") and the Character Committee for the Seventh Appellate Circuit (\"Committee\"). The Board determined in a 3-2 vote, as did the Committee unanimously, that she has failed to show ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4409688],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2665079/in-re-application-for-warrant/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Application for Warrant","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2665079,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-11-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Misc. No. 2010-0291","docket_id":235537,"judge":"Judge Lamberth","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:41:22.120575Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T07:47:04.343200Z","score":{"bm25":39.035442}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1844,"cites":[795916,1212565],"download_url":"http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/sites/dcd/files/mag10-291.pdf","id":2665079,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2010/11/01/in_re_application_for_warrant_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T21:25:24.624705Z","date_created":"2014-04-04T07:07:15.800852Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"81709a92681ee5f9bdd7095ad410599b8644dc58","snippet":"~`  t\"`) 1\")\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n   \n\n~ )\nAPPLICATION FOR WARRANT )\nFOR ACCOUNT ~ )\n\nHeoacte:tj , GMAIL_CDM )\nMAINTAINED ON COMPUTER SERVERS -) \\’\\<\\ a.g.\nOPERATED BY GOOGLE, INC., ) Ma'j'. No. 10-29l-M-01\nHEADQUARTERED AT ) (A.K/JMF/RCL) _ _\n1600 AMPHITHEATRE PARKWAY ) - __\nMOUNTAIN VIEW, CA ’ ) F I L E D\n\n) nov -1 2010\nClark, U.S. District & Bankruptcy\nMEMORANDUM AND ORDER Cnurts for the District of Columb\\a\n\nBefore the Court is the government’s Motion f","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2665079],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Unknown","syllabus":""}]}