{"count":950,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xNC4wNjQ3NDYmcz01MTQ1MzU0JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDktMjYmcD0y&q=APPRENTICESHIP+CONTRACTS+SPECIAL+TYPES+OF+CONTRACTS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5811685/southern-california-cement-masons-joint-apprenticeship-committee-v/","attorney":"Counsel, Wohlner Kaplon Phillips Young & Cutler, Jeffrey L. Cutler and Elizabeth Rosenfeld for Plaintiffs and Appellants., Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Paul Gifford, Assistant Attorney General, Joyce E. Hee and Anne Michelle Burr, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent., Reich, Adell & Cvitan, Alexander B. Cvitan, J. David Sackman and Angela Serranzana for Real Party in Interest.","caseName":"Southern California Cement Masons Joint Apprenticeship Committee v. California Apprenticeship Council","caseNameFull":"SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CEMENT MASONS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, and v. CALIFORNIA APPRENTICESHIP COUNCIL, and Respondent SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LABORERS CEMENT MASONS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, Real Party in Interest and","citation":["213 Cal. App. 4th 1531","153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 448","2013 WL 753469","2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 154"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":5811685,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-02-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. A132892","docket_id":62169128,"judge":"Margulies","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T06:51:03.620616Z","date_created":"2022-01-12T04:09:05.667010Z","score":{"bm25":38.264942}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[844186,1198892,1237048,2256522,2264838,2285664,2356499,2634908,5664493,5665692],"download_url":null,"id":5667172,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-07T12:55:59.392092Z","date_created":"2022-01-12T04:09:05.685392Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOpinion\nMARGULIES, J.\nAppellants Southern California Cement Masons Joint Apprenticeship Committee and San Diego County Cement Masons Joint Apprenticeship Committee (hereafter the Existing Committees) operated the only state-approved apprenticeship training programs for cement masons in *1535Southern California. In December 2008, real party in interes","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5667172],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3998417/cincinnati-insurance-v-american-line-builders-apprenticeship-training/","attorney":"Stephen Findley,  for appellant.\n\n Gary Snyder  and  Robert M. O'Neal,  for appellee ALBAT.\n\n Richard J. LaSalvia,  for appellee Walter Lang.","caseName":"Cincinnati Insurance v. American Line Builders Apprenticeship Training Program","caseNameFull":"CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. AMERICAN LINE BUILDERS APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING PROGRAM Et Al., Appellees","citation":["638 N.E.2d 1047","93 Ohio App. 3d 392","1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 1283"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":3998417,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1994-03-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 14110.","docket_id":3870559,"judge":"Grady, Wolff, Young","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T22:23:15.611155Z","date_created":"2016-07-06T07:11:57.596787Z","score":{"bm25":21.41859}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8094,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":3752115,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"/home/mlissner/columbia/opinions/ohio/appellate_court_opinions/documents/b66d9ecb0aed1ccb.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T10:00:07.139627Z","date_created":"2016-07-06T07:11:57.603551Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"28694fe27d85a723d426d3a55861383a2a0a4bab","snippet":"This is an appeal from a summary judgment in an action for a declaratory judgment brought by an insurer to construe an exclusionary provision in a policy of liability insurance. The trial court held that the exclusion did not apply and granted summary judgment for the insured. Appellant Cincinnati Insurance Company (\"CIC\") argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it found that the exclusion did not apply and should, instead, have granted summary judgment to CIC.\nAppellee Americ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County.","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3752115],"source":"ZU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1971409/southeastern-sheet-metal-joint-apprenticeship-training-fund-v-barsuli/","attorney":"Matthew R. Robbins, Renata Dash, Previant, Goldberg, Ulemen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiffs., Gary M. Williams, Williams Law Offices, Hales Corners, WI, for Defendant.","caseName":"Southeastern Sheet Metal Joint Apprenticeship Training Fund v. Barsuli","caseNameFull":"SOUTHEASTERN SHEET METAL JOINT APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING FUND, Et Al. Plaintiffs, v. Joseph BARSULI, Defendant","citation":["950 F. Supp. 1406","1997 WL 16825"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":1971409,"court":"District Court, E.D. Wisconsin","court_citation_string":"E.D. Wis.","court_id":"wied","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1997-01-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"93-C-967","docket_id":1799673,"judge":"Randa","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T07:43:03.855299Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T19:34:16.027419Z","score":{"bm25":20.14212}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2658,"cites":[107609,111620,111719,111722,112197,526506,536087,600306,657189,1614924,1744431,2347546,3248917],"download_url":null,"id":1971409,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T15:02:01.133523Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T07:57:06.128792Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2cd1174b21b70ecbed139df4984980012188eda2","snippet":"\n950 F.Supp. 1406 (1997)\nSOUTHEASTERN SHEET METAL JOINT APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING FUND, et al., Plaintiffs,\nv.\nJoseph BARSULI, Defendant.\nNo. 93-C-967.\nUnited States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.\nJanuary 15, 1997.\n*1407 *1408 Matthew R. Robbins, Renata Dash, Previant, Goldberg, Ulemen, Gratz, M","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1971409],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4630398/protec-gmbh/","attorney":"","caseName":"PROTEC GmbH","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4630398,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-06-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ASBCA No. 61161, 61162","docket_id":15788524,"judge":"Sweet","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:40:15.182070Z","date_created":"2019-06-18T14:00:05.524476Z","score":{"bm25":19.664923}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[612728,670645],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2019/61161,%2061162%20PROTEC%20GmbH%206.3.19.pdf","id":4407651,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/06/03/protec_gmbh.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:31:25.075438Z","date_created":"2019-06-18T14:00:05.530960Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a2794c31f0dda7e9bea8b20f00bf467c80572a9e","snippet":"                ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n\nAppeals of --                                    )\n                                                 )\nPROTEC GmbH                                      )   ASBCA Nos. 61161, 61162\n                                                 )\nUnder Contract No. W912CM-14-D-0007              )\n\nAPPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                       Paul D. Reinsdorf, Esq.\n                                                      Attorney at Law\n             ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4407651],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1381493/trustees-of-the-local-union-no-17-sheet-metal-workers-apprenticeship-fund/","attorney":"Robert D. Goldberg, Goldberg, Goldberg & Goldberg, Pawtucket, RI, for Plaintiff(s)., John W. Dineen, Yesser Glasson & Dineen, Providence, RI, for Defendant.","caseName":"Trustees of the Local Union No. 17 Sheet Metal Workers' Apprenticeship Fund v. May Engineering Co.","caseNameFull":"TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL UNION NO. 17 SHEET METAL WORKERS’ APPRENTICESHIP FUND and Local Union No. 17 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Plaintiffs, v. MAY ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., Defendant","citation":["951 F. Supp. 346","1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 635","1997 WL 26991"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":1381493,"court":"District Court, D. Rhode Island","court_citation_string":"D.R.I.","court_id":"rid","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1997-01-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C.A. 96-189L","docket_id":926135,"judge":"Lagueux","lexisCite":"1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 635","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T03:32:26.200233Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T13:11:45.601922Z","score":{"bm25":18.797747}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1839,"cites":[105573,110956,111415,195880,536524,677823,1890876],"download_url":null,"id":1381493,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T07:47:16.479295Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:52:50.075251Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"044df0a52b61433b0eeb619c1e7af47ed9edb23e","snippet":"\n951 F.Supp. 346 (1997)\nTRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL UNION NO. 17 SHEET METAL WORKERS' APPRENTICESHIP FUND and Local Union No. 17 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Plaintiffs,\nv.\nMAY ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., Defendant.\nC.A. No. 96-189L.\nUnited States District Court, D. Rhode Island.\nJanuary 22, 1997.\n*347 Robert D.","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1381493],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9381995/mitchell-v-rite-aid-of-md/","attorney":"","caseName":"Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9381995,"court":"Court of Special Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md. Ct. Spec. App.","court_id":"mdctspecapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"0021/22","docket_id":66964877,"judge":"Leahy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:01:56.314920Z","date_created":"2023-03-07T21:04:22.160099Z","score":{"bm25":18.336128}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1501590,1547024,1903303,1904447,1923737,1928547,1953345,1973132,2084660,2088778,2137431,2296416,2314435,2322316,2323470,2325501,2360990,2423777,2680959,3189123,4539741,5142342,5161655,7226826,7228305,8406942,9589935,9634698,9714784,9747649,9835030,10487518,10487564,10487571,10487671],"download_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/0021s22.pdf","id":9377471,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/07/mitchell_v._rite_aid_of_md..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T18:42:08.903401Z","date_created":"2023-03-07T21:04:22.185659Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0ff3cff1f56f40d3d4eae020c751756d79503c35","snippet":"Haissaun Mitchell et al. v. Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc., et al.\nNo. 21, Sept. Term 2022\nOpinion by Leahy, J.\n\nTort Law > Workers’ Compensation Immunity > LE § 9-509\n\nUnder Section 9-509 of the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act which is codified in\nTitle 9 of the Maryland Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), Labor & Employment\nArticle (“LE”), the liability of an employer for injuries to an employee while on the job is\nexclusive to a claim in workers’ compensation. Section 9-509 “vindicates a","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9377471],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9380943/mitchell-v-rite-aid-of-md/","attorney":"","caseName":"Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9380943,"court":"Court of Special Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md. Ct. Spec. App.","court_id":"mdctspecapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"0021/22","docket_id":66923686,"judge":"Leahy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:01:40.289168Z","date_created":"2023-03-02T18:05:29.846340Z","score":{"bm25":18.313366}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1501590,1547024,1903303,1904447,1923737,1928547,1953345,1973132,2084660,2088778,2137431,2296416,2314435,2322316,2323470,2325501,2360990,2423777,2680959,3189123,4539741,5142342,5161655,7226826,7228305,8406942,9589935,9634698,9714784,9747649,9835030,10487518,10487564,10487571,10487671],"download_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/0021s22.pdf","id":9376419,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/02/mitchell_v._rite_aid_of_md..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T18:35:29.954723Z","date_created":"2023-03-02T18:05:29.851338Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"702f4e0e96a2902b425e0b80b5879440e86507cd","snippet":"Haissaun Mitchell, et al. v. Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc., et al.\nNo. 21, Sept. Term 2022\nOpinion by Leahy, J.\n\nTort Law > Workers’ Compensation Immunity > LE § 9-509\n\nUnder Section 9-509 of the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act which is codified in\nTitle 9 of the Maryland Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), Labor & Employment\nArticle (“LE”), the liability of an employer for injuries to an employee while on the job is\nexclusive to a claim in workers’ compensation. Section 9-509 “vindicates ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9376419],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9381328/mitchell-v-rite-aid-of-md/","attorney":"","caseName":"Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9381328,"court":"Court of Special Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md. Ct. Spec. App.","court_id":"mdctspecapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"0021/22","docket_id":66932370,"judge":"Leahy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:01:46.880349Z","date_created":"2023-03-03T22:05:24.730693Z","score":{"bm25":18.097734}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1501590,1547024,1903303,1904447,1923737,1928547,1953345,1973132,2084660,2088778,2137431,2296416,2314435,2322316,2323470,2325501,2360990,2423777,2680959,3189123,4539741,5142342,5161655,7226826,7228305,8406942,9589935,9634698,9714784,9747649,9835030,10487518,10487564,10487571,10487671],"download_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/0021s22.pdf","id":9376804,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/03/mitchell_v._rite_aid_of_md..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T20:30:03.235651Z","date_created":"2023-03-03T22:05:24.738421Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"456c38e88a0996c00660fe9a183c518f9a9b334f","snippet":"Haissaun Mitchell et al. v. Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc., et al.\nNo. 21, Sept. Term 2022\nOpinion by Leahy, J.\n\nTort Law > Workers’ Compensation Immunity > LE § 9-509\n\nUnder Section 9-509 of the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act which is codified in\nTitle 9 of the Maryland Code (1991, 2016 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), Labor & Employment\nArticle (“LE”), the liability of an employer for injuries to an employee while on the job is\nexclusive to a claim in workers’ compensation. Section 9-509 “vindicates a","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9376804],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1851240/milwaukee-area-joint-plumbing-apprenticeship-committee-v-department-of/","attorney":"For the petitioner-appellant, Milwaukee Area Joint Plumbing Apprenticeship Committee, the cause was submitted on the brief of Judith E. Kuhn of Milwaukee. Orally argued by Judith E. Kuhn., For all petitioners-appellants except Milwaukee Area Joint Plumbing Apprenticeship Committee, the cause was submitted on the brief of David Leo Uelmen and John J. Brennan of Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, S.C. of Milwaukee. Orally argued by David Leo Uelmen., For the respondent, Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, the cause was submitted on the brief of Donald J. Hanaway, Attorney General, and James E. Doyle, Attorney General, with David E. Hoel, Assistant Attorney General. Orally argued by David E. Hoel., For the intervenor-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of James K. Pease, Jr. and Carol M. Gapen, of Melli, Walker, Pease & Ruhly, S.C. of Madison. Orally argued by James K. Pease, Jr.","caseName":"Milwaukee Area Joint Plumbing Apprenticeship Committee v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations","caseNameFull":"Milwaukee Area Joint Plumbing Apprenticeship Committee, on Its Own Behalf, and on Behalf of Other Joint Apprenticeship Committees, Similarly Situated: Wisconsin Pipe Traders Association, AFL-CIO; Wisconsin State Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO; Sheet Metal Workers Union No. 18; Bricklayers, AFL-CIO; Wisconsin Conference of Electricians, AFL-CIO; Asbestos Workers Union Local No. 19; Roofers Union No. 65, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations, Respondent","citation":["493 N.W.2d 744","172 Wis. 2d 299","1992 Wisc. App. LEXIS 614"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":1851240,"court":"Court of Appeals of Wisconsin","court_citation_string":"Wis. Ct. App.","court_id":"wisctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1992-11-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"90-1840","docket_id":1415134,"judge":"Gartzke, Dykman, Sundby","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T06:49:18.641328Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T16:33:37.926064Z","score":{"bm25":18.03674}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104758,1311842,1647649,1672905,1810271,1973782,2018717,2053028,2056040,2161461,2215384],"download_url":null,"id":1851240,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T13:02:57.300649Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T07:37:16.375340Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7aacd31648f81e27ffa21d1dcd6c064f99366a20","snippet":"\n172 Wis.2d 299 (1992)\n493 N.W.2d 744\nMILWAUKEE AREA JOINT PLUMBING APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, on its own Behalf, and on Behalf of Other Joint Apprenticeship Committees, Similarly Situated: Wisconsin Pipe Traders Association, AFL-CIO; Wisconsin. State Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO; Sheet Metal Workers Union No. 118; Bricklayers, AFL-CIO; Wisconsin Conference of Electricians, AFL-CIO; Asbestos Workers Union Local No. 19; Roofers Uni","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[8488,8492,8515],"panel_names":["Charles P. Dykman","Paul C. Gartzke","Robert D. Sundby"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1851240],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9410881/brown-v-city-of-inglewood/","attorney":"","caseName":"Brown v. City of Inglewood","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9410881,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"B320658","docket_id":67458730,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:09:28.946545Z","date_created":"2023-06-30T18:04:38.494309Z","score":{"bm25":17.696346}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1401425,2508365,2567202,4020411,4022560,4166209,4415898,4418841],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B320658.PDF","id":9406357,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/06/30/brown_v._city_of_inglewood.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:55:57.485732Z","date_created":"2023-06-30T18:04:38.506050Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d234696bf00b73e1a17d2fb74c41316163252b45","snippet":"Filed 5/31/23 Certified for Partial Pub. 6/30/23 (order attached)\n\n\n\n\nIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n                                 DIVISION ONE\n\n WANDA M. BROWN,                                      B320658\n\n         Plaintiff and Respondent,                    (Los Angeles County\n                                                      Super. Ct. No. 21STCV30604)\n\n         v.\n\n CITY OF INGLEWOOD et al.,\n\n         Defendants and ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9406357],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1237048/southern-california-chapter-of-associated-builders-contractor-inc-v/","attorney":"Counsel, John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attorneys General, Edmond B. Mamer, Jack T. Kerry and Jack Newman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant., Stanton, Kay & Watson, Lawrence H. Kay, William L. Porter, Kirk M. Prindle, Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Berzon & Rubin, Peter D. Nussbaum, Daniel T. Purtell, Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn, Paul V. Simpson, Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Shepard, Gary L. Lieber, Scott Robins, Henry A. Platt, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, Arthur Mendelson, James P. Baker and Sue Means as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant., Hill, Farrer & Burrill and Ronald W. Novotny for Real Party in Interest and Appellant., Thierman, Cook, Brown & Prager, Mark R. Thierman, John W. Prager, Jr., Margaret Wilson and George P. Parisotto for Plaintiff and Respondent., John M. Rea, Vanessa L. Holton and David Allen Kizer for Defendant and Respondent.","caseName":"Southern California Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractor Inc. v. California Apprenticeship Council","caseNameFull":"SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC., JOINT APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA APPRENTICESHIP COUNCIL, Defendant and Appellant; DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF APPRENTICESHIP STANDARDS, Defendant and Respondent; RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO ELECTRICAL JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING COMMITTEES, Real Party in Interest and Appellant","citation":["841 P.2d 1011","4 Cal. 4th 422","14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 491","92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10348","16 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1171","92 Daily Journal DAR 17319","1992 Cal. LEXIS 6120"],"citeCount":42,"cluster_id":1237048,"court":"California Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Cal.","court_id":"cal","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1992-12-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S024685","docket_id":635209,"judge":"Panelli","lexisCite":"92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10348","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T02:37:09.829699Z","date_created":"2015-06-29T21:03:49.646265Z","score":{"bm25":16.991526}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3836,"cites":[100011,109472,110993,111438,111858,111901,112105,112246,112508,112512,112742,112766,465266,506125,533627,567905,572216,578666,1120903,1182355,1249762,1442317,1481290,2161725,3304087],"download_url":null,"id":1237048,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T06:08:30.115801Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:09:59.920440Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"44f2ccb6c250f73a8406f67f3d3d064110adf033","snippet":"\n4 Cal.4th 422 (1992)\n841 P.2d 1011\n14 Cal. Rptr.2d 491\nSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC., JOINT APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, Plaintiff and Respondent,\nv.\nCALIFORNIA APPRENTICESHIP COUNCIL, Defendant and Appellant; DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF APPRENTICESHIP STANDARDS, Defendant and Respondent; RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO ELECTRICAL JOINT APPREN","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1237048],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3000100/northern-contracting-v-state-of-illinois/","attorney":"Thomas R. Olson (argued), Thomas R. Olson & Associates, St. Paul, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Erik G. Light (argued), Office of the Attorney General, Kevin J. Burke, Hin-shaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL, PHB, Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Ap-pellees., Charles E. Leggott, Dept, of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendant, U.S. Dept, of Transp.","caseName":"Northern Contracting v. State of Illinois","caseNameFull":"NORTHERN CONTRACTING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of ILLINOIS, Illinois Department of Transportation, Kirk Brown, in His Capacity as the Illinois Secretary of Transportation, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees","citation":["473 F.3d 715"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":3000100,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"7th Cir.","court_id":"ca7","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-01-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"05-3981","docket_id":2857330,"judge":"Coffey, Kanne, Williams","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T16:41:34.386047Z","date_created":"2015-09-24T20:51:55.227476Z","score":{"bm25":16.468826}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[117947,553395,567208,677868,773972,783775,787985,790235,2564160],"download_url":"http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2007/D01-08/C:05-3981:J:_:aut:T:op:N:0:S:0","id":3000100,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2007/01/08/northern_contracting_v._state_of_illinois.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T01:51:42.926877Z","date_created":"2015-09-24T20:01:08.469898Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"7ef94b3a07e1ea7a473a73ae54337c3e00431122","snippet":"\n\n\n \n   *717\n   \n  WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.\n \n\n  The question in this case is whether the Illinois Department of Transportation violated the United States Constitution in administering a program designed to increase the participation of socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in Illinois highway construction sub","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3000100],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10620040/barron-v-city-of-chicago/","attorney":"","caseName":"Barron v. City of Chicago","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 IL App (1st) 240066"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":10620040,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1-24-0066","docket_id":70672334,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-30T16:06:38.180243Z","date_created":"2025-06-30T16:06:38.068543Z","score":{"bm25":16.293804}},"neutralCite":"2025 IL App (1st) 240066","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1976074,2033664,2034791,2040611,2061171,2079303,2093146,2149726,2219849,2230005,2234744,2240002,2247228,2643177,2674574,2799566,3137005,3142019,3142103,3148016,3216868,4118635,4353359,4398349,6316369,7021201,7025748,7799332,7804889,9520259,9520511,9521804,9714037,10490510,10490968],"download_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/2c2d7280-2b33-4af0-8662-72b8b00948a0/file","id":11086628,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/30/barron_v._city_of_chicago.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T20:42:04.735926Z","date_created":"2025-06-30T16:06:38.082320Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f5468f7c5c8b341c4dfdb49ce8e2dc2d8dee9d5c","snippet":"                                   2025 IL App (1st) 240066\n                                         No. 1-24-0066\n                                                                                  First Division\n                                                                                  June 30, 2025\n\n ____________________________________________________________________________\n\n                                            IN THE\n                             APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS\n    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11086628],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10034551/sanchez-lopez-v-dc-dept-of-employment-services/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sanchez Lopez v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Services","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10034551,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-08-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-AA-0765","docket_id":69025702,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-08-08T14:05:10.435158Z","date_created":"2024-08-08T14:05:10.385391Z","score":{"bm25":16.289728}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1176178,2317439],"download_url":"https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/Lopez%20v.%20%20DC%20DOES%2022-AA-0765.pdf","id":10501152,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/08/08/sanchez_lopez_v._d.c._dept_of_employment_services.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T01:22:57.514156Z","date_created":"2024-08-08T14:05:10.387409Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f5c991e120d4c49166f8452d212af0e9e92f92fc","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. 22-AA-0765\n\n\n                        JOSE SANCHEZ LOPEZ, PETITIONER,\n\n                                         V.\n\n         DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10501152],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4989811/felder-v-king-motor-co-of-south-florida/","attorney":"David L. Rich of David L. Rich, P.A., Margate, and Nancy Little Hoffmann of Nancy Little Hoffmann, P.A., Port Laud-erdale, for appellant George W. Felder., Joshua D. Lerner and Nicole Sieb Smith of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Miami, for appellee.","caseName":"Felder v. King Motor Co. of South Florida","caseNameFull":"George W. FELDER v. KING MOTOR COMPANY OF SOUTH FLORIDA d/b/a King Hyundai","citation":["110 So. 3d 105","2013 WL 1136334","2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4419"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4989811,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-03-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 4D11-3893","docket_id":60230109,"judge":"Blanc, Ciklin, Peter, Warner","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:15:42.496560Z","date_created":"2021-08-20T23:44:10.185283Z","score":{"bm25":15.88209}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4799900,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:49:06.903998Z","date_created":"2021-08-20T23:44:10.201974Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nBLANC, PETER D., Associate Judge.\nAppellant, George W. Felder (“Felder”), timely appeals from the final summary judgment entered in favor of Appellee, King Motor Company of South Florida d/b/a King Hyundai (“King”). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm on all points and write only to explain our reasons for rejecting Felder’s argument that the trial court erred","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4799900],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2756687/balfour-beatty-construction-v-maryland-department-of-general-services/","attorney":"Alexander J. Crow (Noble & Crow, PA, on the brief), Rockville, MD, for Appellant., Stanley Turk (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.","caseName":"Balfour Beatty Construction v. Maryland Department of General Services","caseNameFull":"BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION, Et Al. v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, Et Al.","citation":["220 Md. App. 334","103 A.3d 1091","201 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3540","2014 Md. App. LEXIS 148"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2756687,"court":"Court of Special Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md. Ct. Spec. App.","court_id":"mdctspecapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-12-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"0957/13","docket_id":2610523,"judge":"Leahy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:28:10.950723Z","date_created":"2015-10-28T20:51:13.702513Z","score":{"bm25":15.202833}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104462,112828,1439685,1475750,1898018,1954269,1971577,1991260,1991412,2033758,2054068,2156789,2266246,2310706,2382104],"download_url":"http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2014/0957s13.pdf","id":2756687,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/12/02/balfour_beatty_const._v._dept._of_gen._servs..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:53:03.895180Z","date_created":"2014-12-02T21:05:07.456039Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"275349091d94922884f6379b2165618c223b4fef","snippet":"\n\n\n  LEAHY, J.\n \n\n  The State of Maryland considers a litany of factors when determining which company’s proposal it will select for the completion of a prominent State construction project. Unlike the selection of a contractor in the private sector, the process for the State is governed by the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act and Marylan","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2756687],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2442601/board-of-trustees-of-the-plumbers-local-union-no-93-ua-v-waterworks/","attorney":"Dennis R. Johnson, Barbara C. Long, Catherine Joy Wiltenburg, Joseph Edward Mallon, Johnson & Krol, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs., Thomas J. Popovich, Law Offices of Thomas J. Popovich, P.C., McHenry, IL, for Defendant.","caseName":"Board of Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No. 93 U.A. v. Waterworks, Inc.","caseNameFull":"BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 93 U.A.; Board of Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No. 93 U.A. Retirement Account Fund; Board of Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No. 93 U.A. Pension Fund; Board of Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No. 93 U.A. Health and Welfare Fund; Board of Trustees of the Joint Apprenticeship Committee Fund of the Plumbing & Heating Industry of Lawk and McHenry Counties; And the Industry Advancement Fund, Plaintiffs, v. WATERWORKS, INC., Defendant","citation":["524 F. Supp. 2d 1081","2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93566","2007 WL 4462234"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2442601,"court":"District Court, N.D. Illinois","court_citation_string":"N.D. Ill.","court_id":"ilnd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-12-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"07 C 3009","docket_id":2314769,"judge":"Elaine E. Bucklo","lexisCite":"2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93566","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:45:08.936614Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:20:08.318027Z","score":{"bm25":14.593155}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":453,"cites":[111719,461051,546259,783642,787985,798041,1446956],"download_url":null,"id":2442601,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:41:03.412889Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:36:44.482226Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a12980ca5d9f3f4f7c4ac2ac6bfa47922e30e45d","snippet":"\n524 F.Supp.2d 1081 (2007)\nBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 93 U.A.; Board of Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No. 93 U.A. Retirement Account Fund; Board of Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No. 93. U.A. Pension Fund; Board of Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No. 93 U.A. Health and Welfare Fund; Board of Trustees of the Joint Apprenticeship Committee Fund of the Plumbing & Heating Industry of Lawk and McHenry Counties; and ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2442601],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2497668/plumbers-pipefitters-apprentices-local-union-no-112-pension-health/","attorney":"Blitman & King, LLP, Syracuse, NY, Jennifer A. Clark, Jodi P. Goldman, of counsel, for plaintiffs., Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP, Bing-hamton, NY, Ronald L. Greene, of counsel, for defendants.","caseName":"Plumbers, Pipefitters & Apprentices Local Union No. 112 Pension, Health & Educational & Apprenticeship Plans v. Mauro's Plumbing, Heating & Fire Suppression Inc.","caseNameFull":"PLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS AND APPRENTICES LOCAL UNION NO. 112 PENSION, HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL AND APPRENTICESHIP PLANS, by George FISH, as Fund Administrator, and Local Union No. 112 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, by Wayne Howard, as Business Manager; Plaintiffs, v. MAURO’S PLUMBING, HEATING AND FIRE SUPPRESSION INC., and Northeast Mechanical of N.Y., Inc., Defendants","citation":["84 F. Supp. 2d 344","24 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2518","2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1434","2000 WL 194555"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":2497668,"court":"District Court, N.D. New York","court_citation_string":"N.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nynd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2000-02-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"3:97-cv-00155","docket_id":2365183,"judge":"McAVOY","lexisCite":"2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1434","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:19:43.688622Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:39:21.964545Z","score":{"bm25":14.155525}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2098,"cites":[109054,440100,513985,679532,707608,708053,715782,716713,751838,752953,757032,760207,763095,763321,1908342,2568077],"download_url":null,"id":2497668,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:12:58.425570Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:56:47.980445Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4036b7fe198fa0818e0cfca10a998536223d6e85","snippet":"\n84 F.Supp.2d 344 (2000)\nPLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS AND APPRENTICES LOCAL UNION NO. 112 PENSION, HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL AND APPRENTICESHIP PLANS, by George FISH, as Fund Administrator, and Local Union No. 112 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, by Wayne Howard, as Business Manager; Plaintiffs,\nv.\nMAURO'S PLUMBING, HEATING AND FIRE SUPPRESSION INC., and Northea","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2497668],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7312406/trustees-of-michigan-regional-council-of-carpenters-employee-benefits-fund/","attorney":"Lauren E. Crummel, Bryan M. Becker-man, Novara Tesija, P.L.L.C., Southfield, MI, for Plaintiffs., Dennis J. Levasseur, Bodman, Detroit, MI, for Intervening Plaintiff., Erika D. Hart, Charles J. Taunt Assoc., Birmingham, MI, for Defendants.","caseName":"Trustees of Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters' Employee Benefits Fund v. H.B. Stubbs Co.","caseNameFull":"TRUSTEES OF MICHIGAN REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS' EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND Trustees of Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters' Annuity Fund Trustees of Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund-Detroit and Vicinity Trustees of the Detroit Carpentry Joint Apprenticeship and Training Fund Trustees of the U.B.C. Advancement Fund Trustees of the Carpenters' Working Dues Fund Trustees of the Carpenters' Special Assessment Fund The Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Plaintiffs and Comerica Bank, Intervening Plaintiff v. H.B. STUBBS COMPANY, n/k/a H.B. Stubbs Company, L.L.C. H.B. Stubbs Holdings, Inc. H.B. Stubbs Company, L.L.C.-East H.B. Stubbs Company, L.L.C.-West H.B. Stubbs Properties, L.L.C Scott Stubbs Stephen H. Stubbs and Kenneth W. Jacobson","citation":["91 F. Supp. 3d 879","2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182680","2014 WL 8046125"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7312406,"court":"District Court, E.D. Michigan","court_citation_string":"E.D. Mich.","court_id":"mied","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-10-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 2:14-cv-11393","docket_id":64300885,"judge":"Michelson","lexisCite":"2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182680","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:34:30.154468Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:25:02.943795Z","score":{"bm25":14.100521}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7230310,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:13:55.047813Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:25:02.951846Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT [60]\nLAURIE J. MICHELSON, District Judge.\nWhen facing financial hardship, a company must often make difficult decisions about which obligations to pay. In this case, several entities operating under the “H.B. Stubbs” name lost half their collective business and did not make contributions to an employee-b","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7230310],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5145354/reyes-v-district-of-columbia-department-of-employment-services/","attorney":"Neil J. Fagan was on the brief for petitioner., Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Michael A. Mil-wee, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Donna M. Murasky, Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief for respondent.","caseName":"Reyes v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services","caseNameFull":"Jaime REYES v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES","citation":["48 A.3d 159","2012 WL 2849620","2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 317"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":5145354,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-07-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 10-AA-1244","docket_id":60459149,"judge":"Belson, Blackburne, Reid, Rigsby","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:55:03.395592Z","date_created":"2021-09-24T16:17:27.938610Z","score":{"bm25":14.064746}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4965835,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T22:16:23.397838Z","date_created":"2021-09-24T16:17:27.953069Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nBLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Associate Judge:\nOn June 1, 2007, petitioner Jaime Reyes (“Reyes”) was injured while pouring concrete at the home of Manuel Gonzalez, the sole proprietor of Manual Gonzalez Home Improvement (“MG Home Improvement” or “Employer”) and the brother-in-law of petitioner. After an evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that no employer/employee relationship existed between Reyes and ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4965835],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}