{"count":5683,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yNC40NDY1NjYmcz00NjAzODA5JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDctMjkmcD0y&q=CONSTRUCTION+AND+APPLICATION+OF+FOREIGN+STATUTE+BREACH+OF+PROMISE&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4427287/in-re-us-office-of-personnel-management-data-security-breach-litigation/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: U.S. Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation","caseNameFull":"In RE: U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: All Cases","citation":["266 F. Supp. 3d 1"],"citeCount":15,"cluster_id":4427287,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-09-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Misc. No. 2015-1394","docket_id":6154863,"judge":"Judge Amy Berman Jackson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:42:17.289560Z","date_created":"2017-09-19T19:02:06.993878Z","score":{"bm25":40.04865}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103284,103761,108502,109301,109592,109729,110333,110654,110715,110997,111500,111903,112418,112747,112931,117845,118329,131163,145658,145730,145875,182528,182990,185180,185864,186026,186191,186422,186628,186736,187239,187375,219631,329267,358113,370398,375879,376753,383760,386024,400184,422035,422117,454527,463698,484872,531314,536060,565225,566788,590210,597782,618639,663691,687355,706916,711029,721376,729685,730972,743063,743575,768380,777869,789130,1363007,1460227,1460877,2484833,2487188,2503837,2678466,3170730,3203656],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015mc1394-117","id":4204540,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/09/19/in_re_u.s._office_of_personnel_management_data_security_breach_litigation.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:10:00.973503Z","date_created":"2017-09-19T19:02:07.014895Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"476a1f7d3663c37700201dac0203551d651e8190","snippet":"\n\n\n \n   *8\n   \n  MEMORANDUM OPINION\n \n\n  AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge\n \n\n  INTRODUCTION\n \n\n  In June of 2016, millions of unsuspecting federal employees sat down at their computers, opened up their email, and received some very disconcerting news.\n \n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4204540],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"Magistrate Case","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6236870/access-of-department-of-justice-inspector-general-to-certain-information/","attorney":"","caseName":"Access of Department of Justice Inspector General to Certain Information Protected from Disclosure by Statute","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6236870,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-07-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62601173,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:03.629871Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:11:37.198311Z","score":{"bm25":38.655922}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[85272,102537,103246,109067,111984,118082,122265,145733,145805,145911,319872,393165,394031,434999,436103,462493,597836,776205,801109,6985741,7261906,7262672,7863000,8734260,8889038,9037418,9423459,9423552,9424952,9427183,9427261,9427534,9427912,9429319,9429679,9429710,9432067,9432384,9433190,9433497,9433580,9433597,9433921,9434172,9434195,9434292,9434353,9434912,9435008,9435221,9435271,9439213,9471358,9488735,9489704,9499471,9499985,9799405,9817771],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/2015-07-20-doj-ig-access/download","id":6103752,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/07/20/access_of_department_of_justice_inspector_general_to_certain_information.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:29:52.953593Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:11:37.201011Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0ef42deea504ee38b14c9eb46f464d0cecbfdfe5","snippet":"    Access of Department of Justice Inspector General to\n  Certain Information Protected from Disclosure by Statute\nDepartment of Justice officials may disclose information protected by the Federal Wiretap\n  Act (Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968), Rule 6(e)\n  of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and section 626 of the Fair Credit Report-\n  ing Act to the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) in connection\n  with many, but not all, of OIG’s","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6103752],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Department of Justice officials may disclose information protected by the Federal Wiretap Act (Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968), Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and section 626 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act to the Department's Office of the Inspector General (\"OIG\") in connection with many, but not all, of OIG's investigations and reviews. Section 6(a)(1) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 does not supersede the limitations on disclosure contained in Title III, Rule 6(e), and section 626. Section 218 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, also does not supersede the limitations on disclosure contained in Title III, Rule 6(e), and section 626."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10635447/state-of-alaska-department-of-transportation-and-public-facilities-v/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities v. Osborne Construction Company","caseNameFull":"","citation":["462 P.3d 991"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10635447,"court":"Alaska Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Alaska","court_id":"alaska","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-05-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S17048","docket_id":70830758,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-17T21:29:59.121147Z","date_created":"2025-07-17T21:24:31.444754Z","score":{"bm25":35.416943}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[495492,1384698,1388692,2350712,2454108,2600797,2638542,2673163,4028763,4309226,6536100,6536691,9755485],"download_url":"https://appellate-records.courts.alaska.gov/CMSPublic/UserControl/OpenOpinionDocument?docNumber=7447&caseNumber=S17048&opinionType=OP","id":11102034,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/05/01/state_of_alaska_department_of_transportation_and_public_facilities_v..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:19:36.404300Z","date_created":"2025-07-17T21:24:31.460153Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b184d1b4a498134984c8199fa8d7977a64badef7","snippet":"      Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER.\n      Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,\n      303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email\n      corrections@akcourts.us.\n\n\n\n               THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA\n\nSTATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT )\nOF TRANSPORTATION AND       )                           Supreme Court No. S-17048\nPUBLIC FA","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11102034],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3145353/in-re-application-of-the-county-treasurer/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Application of the County Treasurer","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":3145353,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2004-03-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1-02-1667 Rel","docket_id":3002945,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T17:57:43.693938Z","date_created":"2015-10-22T19:00:53.753677Z","score":{"bm25":29.681108}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2082429],"download_url":"http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2004/1stDistrict/March/WP/1021667.doc","id":3145353,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"wpd/2004/03/29/in_re_application_of_the_county_treasurer.wpd","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T03:29:47.632307Z","date_created":"2015-10-22T18:08:10.823339Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0949e0efb7c7bcf262eb9f93c21daa3b63a48209","snippet":"\n\n\n\n\nFIRST DIVISION\n\nMarch 29, 2004\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNo. 1-02-1667\n\n\n\nIn re APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY       \t)\tAppeal from the\n\nTREASURER, for Judgment and order of   \t)\tCircuit Court of\n\nSale Against Lands and Lots Returned  \t)","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3145353],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6623276/amaya-v-dgs-construction/","attorney":"","caseName":"Amaya v. DGS Construction","caseNameFull":"","citation":["278 A.3d 1216","479 Md. 515"],"citeCount":18,"cluster_id":6623276,"court":"Court of Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md.","court_id":"md","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-07-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14/21","docket_id":63588244,"judge":"Watts","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:22:39.245915Z","date_created":"2022-07-13T15:07:14.831358Z","score":{"bm25":29.581589}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":4716,"cites":[104033,104318,105345,105346,1946656,1990460,1991818,1998217,2174977,2323664,2717723,4221555,4223920,4287792,5142084,5142332,7233619,9419471,9645448,9693155,9877294,10487628,10487676],"download_url":"http://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2022/14a21.pdf","id":6499634,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/13/amaya_v._dgs_construction.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T08:40:27.530277Z","date_created":"2022-07-13T15:07:14.843432Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b6d2a962d3e7bd78838941029d1f7a59ae50ecae","snippet":"Mario Ernesto Amaya, et al. v. DGS Construction, LLC, et al., No. 14, September Term,\n2021; Juan Carlos Terrones Rojas, et al. v. F.R. General Contractors, Inc., et al., No. 17,\nSeptember Term, 2021\n\nMARYLAND WAGE AND HOUR LAW, MD. CODE ANN., LAB. & EMPL. (“LE”)\n§§ 3-401 TO 3-431 – MARYLAND WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW,\nLE §§ 3-501 TO 3-509 – CODE OF MARYLAND REGULATIONS 09.12.41.10 –\nWAGES – OVERTIME COMPENSATION – HOURS OF WORK – UNJUST\nENRICHMENT – Court of Appeals held that Portal-to-Port","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6499634],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4673285/application-of-the-committee-on-the-judiciary-us-house-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4673285,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-10-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2019-0048","docket_id":16384139,"judge":"Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:52:17.669540Z","date_created":"2019-10-25T20:00:55.677367Z","score":{"bm25":29.400274}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1536,"cites":[94133,98918,101443,105703,107248,109257,110060,110893,111004,111005,112396,112644,112803,118381,118435,118487,145748,184637,186622,186944,245069,257904,267864,321072,358211,378259,380923,381899,408088,414308,440049,475255,476280,476626,476809,492610,498006,512369,526957,542369,560513,564763,663689,673412,699521,701821,743062,748880,766306,1468960,1470860,1654484,1801760,2114936,2370177,2781925,4360588],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019gj0048-46","id":4450538,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/10/25/application_of_the_committee_on_the_judiciary_u.s._house_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:01:05.194679Z","date_created":"2019-10-25T20:00:55.699617Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e51487bb1ef676ee7fccc6344c5f25212d32819b","snippet":"                                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n In re APPLICATION OF THE\n COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S.\n HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FOR AN                                                        Grand Jury Action No. 19-48 (BAH)\n ORDER AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE\n OF CERTAIN GRAND JURY MATERIALS                                                         Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell\n\n\n\n\nMEMORANDUM OPINION GR","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4450538],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Magistrate Case","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6778151/whispell-foreign-cars-inc-v-united-states/","attorney":"Mark F. Hearne, II, Clayton, MO, for plaintiffs. Lindsay S.C. Brinton and Meghan S. Largent, Washington, DC, of counsel., Carol Draper, with whom was Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Natural Resources Section, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.","caseName":"Whispell Foreign Cars, Inc. v. United States","caseNameFull":"WHISPELL FOREIGN CARS, INC. v. United States","citation":["97 Fed. Cl. 324","2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 47","2011 WL 380457"],"citeCount":28,"cluster_id":6778151,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-02-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 09-315L","docket_id":63759405,"judge":"Hewitt","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T11:11:37.249455Z","date_created":"2022-07-20T21:02:36.964780Z","score":{"bm25":29.324564}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6661671,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T08:12:13.308887Z","date_created":"2022-07-20T21:02:36.977051Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nORDER AND OPINION\n\nHEWITT, Chief Judge.\nI. Introduction\nThis is a rails-to-trails case brought by Whispell Foreign Cars, Inc., et al. (plaintiffs). Before the court are plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Docket Number (Dkt. No.) 29, filed June 16, 2010; plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Pis.’ Mem.), Dkt. No. 31, filed J","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6661671],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8731416/in-re-sony-gaming-networks-customer-data-security-breach-litigation/","attorney":"Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates PC, Chicago, IL, Brian Russell Strange, Strange & Carpenter, Lionel Z. Glancy, Marc L. Godino, Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, Jon Anders Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group PC, Sandra Watson Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Robert R. Henss-ler, Jr., Douglas R. Britton, Rachel L. Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Timothy Gordon Blood, Thomas Joseph O’Reardon, II, Blood Hurst & O’Reardon LLP, Mark A. Maasch Turner and Maasch, Gayle M. Blatt, Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP, San Diego, CA, Lance A. Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Miami, FL, Seth R. Gassman, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Brian Philip Murray, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Murray Frank LLP, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC, Patrick J. Sheehan, Whatley Kallas, LLC, Shujah Ahmad Awan, Shujah Awan, Lester L. Levy, Wolf Popper, Curtis V. Trinko, Jennifer Elizabeth Traystman, Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, New York, NY, James D. Hoey, III, The Hoey Law Firm, La Jolla, CA, William T. Crowder, Scott E. Poynter, Emerson Poynter LLP, Little Rock, AR, Thomas Gourrier Bousquet, Bousquet Law, P.C., Muhammad Suleiman Aziz, Abraham Watkins Nichols Sorrels and Friend, Houston, TX, Caleb L.H. Marker, Christopher Paul Ridout, Ridout Lyon and Ottoson LLP, Devon M. Lyon, Ridout & Lyon, LLP, Long Beach, CA, Gillian L. Wade, Sara Dawn Avila, Mark Alan Milstein, Milstein Adelman LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Mark Schlachet, Law Offices of Mark Schlachet, Cleveland, OH, Paul C. Whalen, Paul C. Whalen, Esq., Manhasset, NY, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Jennifer L. Crose, Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Reserve, LA, Matthew B. Moreland, Matthew B. Moreland, Attorney at Law, Allan Kanner, Kanner & Whiteley, LLC, New Orleans, LA, David I. Pankin, Brooklyn, NY, Thomas D. Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm APC, San Clemente, CA, for Plaintiff., Amanda Catherine Fitzsimmons, William S. Boggs, DLA Piper LLP, San Diego, CA, David Alan Walton, Beirne Maynard et ah, Houston, TX, Douglas H. Meal, Harvey J. Wolkoff, Mark P. Szpak, Robert B. Gordon, Ropes and Gray, Boston, MA, Karin Pagnanelli, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Morris Weinberg, Jr., Zuckerman Spaeder, Tampa, FL, Rocky C. Tsai, Ropes & Gray LLP, Thad A. Davis, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.","caseName":"In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Security Breach Litigation","caseNameFull":"In re SONY GAMING NETWORKS AND CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION","citation":["996 F. Supp. 2d 942","82 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 493","2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7353","2014 WL 223677"],"citeCount":83,"cluster_id":8731416,"court":"District Court, S.D. California","court_citation_string":"S.D. Cal.","court_id":"casd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-01-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"MDL No. 11md2258 AJB (MDD)","docket_id":65997340,"judge":"Battaglia","lexisCite":"2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7353","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:13:20.551953Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T07:36:59.937880Z","score":{"bm25":29.03161}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[23180,89343,103402,103542,106497,110831,112418,112747,131163,145730,145875,147490,181056,202048,213297,228273,320424,338455,377212,495007,504663,516210,540085,543065,570028,618713,620819,622464,706088,715714,731224,743520,764706,770682,774954,775863,780573,784062,791014,791494,794894,795139,796813,800566,807936,821306,868499,894583,1035747,1043371,1088528,1098007,1126404,1133350,1136033,1154737,1158333,1160919,1208595,1218182,1234659,1243130,1248659,1255911,1283492,1349036,1354905,1363007,1371211,1378563,1385469,1436480,1446183,1457289,1557045,1579082,1585743,1593644,1598440,1636421,1639561,1657768,1676192,1691606,1719172,1755829,1773352,1773536,1786855,1788498,1801796,1811136,1821520,1827370,1835060,1843485,1873814,1900333,1910285,1917919,1953864,1975379,1981023,2007829,2008816,2008842,2022850,2046989,2086398,2088062,2102557,2131112,2132316,2139353,2147770,2164573,2177153,2180229,2219291,2222118,2228955,2241313,2246518,2246913,2248440,2255963,2263223,2264898,2267506,2281968,2282473,2283365,2285977,2287828,2288774,2289441,2290504,2291245,2291564,2293551,2325843,2328571,2330998,2350076,2350237,2361131,2367160,2396042,2409074,2426441,2426591,2429380,2432554,2437814,2444475,2448011,2453926,2462869,2462991,2472463,2475102,2475765,2477879,2484227,2520008,2520475,2522095,2539203,2540812,2542208,2564394,2623151,2624588,2638741,2967141,4804963,5113529,5452558,5731656,5949468,6174129,6207030,6214497,6450676,6452504,6453444,6454218,6458628,6460220,6462549,6463382,6762006,6789252,6964204,6998032,7016609,7121488,8051854,8051909,8052385,8052507,8053275,8053446,8409947,8624914,8695635,8696492,8697543,8698798,8699634,8699806,8699825,8700868,8700870,8703815,8706140,8707466,8709363,8710005,8710883,8711234,8735280,8744780,8757805,8761715,8764025,8766701,8767726,8895584,8898139,8950166,9000003,9322471,9685293],"download_url":null,"id":8714620,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:30:33.054031Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T07:36:59.954331Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT\nANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.\nThis action arises out of a criminal intrusion into a computer network system used to provide online gaming and Internet connectivity via an individual’s gaming console or personal computer. Plaintiffs, a nationwide putative consumer clas","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8714620],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8713301/in-re-iphone-application-litig/","attorney":"Avi Melech Kreitenberg, Kamberlaw, LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Milberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David Christopher Parisi, Azita Moradmand, David Christopher Parisi, Parisi & Havens LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, David A. Stampley, Scott A. Kamber, Kamberlaw, LLC, Melissa Ryan Clark, Anne Marie Vu, Peter E. Seidman, Milberg LLP, New York, NY, Deborah Kravitz, Kamberlaw LLP, Healdsburg, CA, William M. Audet, Jonas Palmer Mann, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jeremy Reade Wilson, Wilson Trosclair & Lovins, Nabil Majed Nachawati, II, Fears Nachawati Law Firm, Joseph H. Malley, Law Office of Joseph H. Malley, PC, Dallas, TX, Sabrina S. Kim, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge Grindal Ñauen, LLP, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Ñauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Donald Chidi Amamgbo, Esq., Amamgbo & Associates, Reginald Von Terrell, The Terrell Law Group, Oakland, CA, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, L.L.C., Reserve, LA, John F. Nevares, John F. Nevares & Assoc. PSC, Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Office, San Juan, PR, Fred Robert Rosenthal, Parker Waichman & Alonso, LLP, Port Washington, NY, Jerrold S. Parker, Parker & Waichman, LLC, Great Neck, NY, E. Kirk Wood, Wood Law Firm LLC, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC, Birmingham, AL, Alan M. Mansfield, The Consumer Law Group, San Diego, CA, Thomas D. Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm APC, San Clemente, CA, Aaron C. Mayer, Mayer Law Group, Charleston, SC, Brian William Smith, Smith &' Vanture, LLP, Howard Weil Rubinstein, Law Offices of Howard W. Rubinstein, West Palm Beach, FL, Monica R. Kelly, Ribbeck Law Chartered, Ari Jonathan Scharg, Jay Edelson, Edelson McGuire, LLC, William Charles Gray, Chicago, IL, Corina MacCarin, Gillian Leigh Wade, Sara Dawn Avila, Milstein Adelman LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Richard Alan Proaps, Attorney at Law, Fair Oaks, CA, Sean Patrick Reis, Edelson McGuire, LLP, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, for Plaintiffs., Jose Carlos Velez-Colon, Bayamon, PR, pro se., S. Ashlie Beringer, Jacob Allen Walker, Molly Elizabeth Cutler, Gail E. Lees, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Bryan Joseph Wilson, Peter H. Day, Teresa Neet Burlison, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Jacob Alan Sommer, Zwillgen PLLC, Marc J. Zwillinger, Zwillinger Genetski LLP, Washington, DC, James Francis McCabe, Penelope Athene Preovolos, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Barbara Ann Izzo, Flurry, Inc., Matthew Dean Brown, Michael Graham Rhodes, Cooley LLP, Genevieve Patricia Rosloff, Joseph Charles Gratz, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, Joshua Aaron Jessen, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants.","caseName":"In re iPhone Application Litig.","caseNameFull":"In re IPHONE APPLICATION LITIG.","citation":["844 F. Supp. 2d 1040","2012 WL 2126351","2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81426"],"citeCount":80,"cluster_id":8713301,"court":"District Court, N.D. California","court_citation_string":"N.D. Cal.","court_id":"cand","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-06-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 11-MD-02250-LHK","docket_id":65979213,"judge":"Koh","lexisCite":"2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81426","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:05:55.176162Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T04:58:37.008040Z","score":{"bm25":28.204916}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[302,106497,108596,109301,112747,117845,118329,131163,145730,145875,147490,149022,151207,223712,508254,540085,613992,620819,698448,718281,766925,779052,780573,788107,789519,796813,1123039,1194077,1208595,1212155,1213391,1235436,1266240,1287229,1301891,1400355,1429600,1446183,1611768,1801796,2133819,2180229,2250750,2251427,2256245,2256580,2261203,2274540,2277473,2280950,2282785,2316676,2416675,2421092,2429654,2461956,2467081,2469354,2472552,2473443,2484095,2495570,2505313,2513963,2521725,2620886,2623151,2630547,2638741,5452233,5452558,5665704,5665723,5665926,6985107,6998032,8408069,8408936,8411989,8694500,8937286,9685293],"download_url":null,"id":8696492,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:24:01.173467Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T04:58:37.018975Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS\nLUCY H. KOH, District Judge.\nA putative nationwide class of plaintiffs bring suit against Apple, Inc., Admob, Inc., Flurry, Inc., AdMarval, Inc., Google, Inc., and Medialets, Inc., (aside from Apple, collectively “Mobile Industry Defendants” 1) for alleged violations of federal and state law. Plaintiffs","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8696492],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2663859/cheeks-of-north-america-inc-v-fort-myer-construction-corporation/","attorney":"Walter T. Charlton, Walter T. Charlton & Associates, Woodsboro, MD, for Plaintiff., Christopher McIntosh Kerns, Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Timothy Joseph Fitzgibbon, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, David H. Bamberger, Edward S. Scheideman, DLA Piper U.S. LLP, Thomas Louis Koger, Office of the Attorney General, Alex Chintella, Curtis A. Boykin, Frederick Arnold Douglas, Douglas & Boykin PLLC, Washington, DC, Elizabeth D. Horton, Leonard A. White, White & Horton, Bethesda, MD, Douglas Alan Datt, Gavett & Datt, PC, Rockville, MD, Joseph Henry Kasimer, Kasimer & Annino, P.C., Falls Church, VA, for Defendants.","caseName":"Cheeks of North America, Inc. v. Fort Myer Construction Corporation","caseNameFull":"CHEEKS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. FORT MYER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Et Al., Defendants","citation":["807 F. Supp. 2d 77","2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90877"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2663859,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-08-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2010-1746","docket_id":218101,"judge":"Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly","lexisCite":"2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90877","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:41:00.481850Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T07:38:22.261889Z","score":{"bm25":28.057163}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[42617,109286,112747,145730,145875,184356,185958,186422,186549,375879,492027,777869,780523,1467103,1954714,1975631,2155367,2313322,2427300,2505261,2540596,2542675,2620886,4948733],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1746-103","id":2663859,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2011/08/16/cheeks_of_north_america_inc._v._fort_myer_construction_corporation.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T21:45:39.434523Z","date_created":"2014-04-04T02:46:52.722774Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9d43b408c1d6a2ef7bb80710bc540314f86554da","snippet":"\n\n\n  MEMORANDUM OPINION\n \n\n  COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.\n \n\n  This action was filed on October 15, 2010 by Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc. (“CNA”) seeking relief for injuries allegedly suffered when CNA lost a series of competitive bids for construction contracts that were awarded by the D.C. Department of Transportation (“DDOT”), the D.C. Departmen","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2663859],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2289709/encore-productions-inc-v-promise-keepers/","attorney":"Dennis W. Brown, Ellen Rubright Ivy, Baldwin & Brown, P.C., Denver, CO, Howard M. Wood, III, Phelon, FitzGerald & Wood, P.C., Manchester, CT, for plaintiff., Brent E. Rychener, Ashley W. Jordaan, Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP, Colorado Springs, CO, for defendants.","caseName":"Encore Productions, Inc. v. Promise Keepers","caseNameFull":"ENCORE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PROMISE KEEPERS, Michael Whalen D/B/A Whalen & Associates, Inc., Defendants","citation":["53 F. Supp. 2d 1101","1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10024","1999 WL 455408"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":2289709,"court":"District Court, D. Colorado","court_citation_string":"D. Colo.","court_id":"cod","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1999-06-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ.A. 99-B-14","docket_id":2133265,"judge":"Babcock","lexisCite":"1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10024","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:21:34.409760Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:09:35.093758Z","score":{"bm25":27.927748}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":145,"cites":[106085,106251,107832,109495,109613,110144,110170,110873,111091,111117,111159,111361,111824,117959,251848,279539,296605,318594,440370,442044,469904,579524,595507,664156,687704,687713,693413,696653,755901,758402,1182240,1350201,1354030,1736615,1751675,1989552,2148599,2250206,2252159,2369784],"download_url":null,"id":2289709,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:44:00.128842Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:59:42.143891Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"87cc2645ac979e9c5362d2dc13646a9ed166277e","snippet":"\n53 F.Supp.2d 1101 (1999)\nENCORE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff,\nv.\nPROMISE KEEPERS, Michael Whalen d/b/a Whalen & Associates, Inc., Defendants.\nNo. Civ.A. 99-B-14.\nUnited States District Court, D. Colorado.\nJune 30, 1999.\n*1102 *1103 *1104 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2289709],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4531300/bridgwood-v-aj-wood-construction-inc/","attorney":"Roy D. Toulan, Jr., for the plaintiff., Lili K. Geller for A.J. Wood Construction, Inc., & another., Mark C. Darling, Worcester, for Anthony Caggiano., The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:, Martin J. Rooney, Braintree, for Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association., Ryan D. Sullivan, Boston, for Eastern Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry., John Pagliaro & Martin J. Newhouse, Boston, for New England Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.","caseName":"Bridgwood v. A.J. Wood Construction, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Terry BRIDGWOOD v. A.J. WOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC.,& Others.","citation":["105 N.E.3d 224","480 Mass. 349"],"citeCount":11,"cluster_id":4531300,"court":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","court_citation_string":"Mass.","court_id":"mass","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-08-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SJC 12352","docket_id":7774621,"judge":"Budd, Cypher, Gants, Gaziano, Kafker, Lenk, Lowy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:11:03.727209Z","date_created":"2018-08-30T12:07:16.956877Z","score":{"bm25":27.78106}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1713739,2017341,2030695,2066072,2077126,2097979,2098013,2100926,2139438,2154385,2210163,2240544,2241832,2341034,2527355],"download_url":"https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/08/29/12352.pdf","id":4308553,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/08/29/bridgwood_v._a.j._wood_construction_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:22:27.076568Z","date_created":"2018-08-30T12:07:16.968737Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"be87cee9bb6a5d0efc819678d477af0f5534205c","snippet":"\n\n\n  CYPHER, J.\n \n\n\n   *226\n  \n\n   **349\n  \n  At issue in this case is whether a claim alleging that a building contractor committed an unfair or deceptive act under\n  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4308553],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9439769/roger-baskin-v-pierce-allred-construction-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Roger Baskin v. Pierce & Allred Construction, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9439769,"court":"Tennessee Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Tenn.","court_id":"tenn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-09-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2021-00144-SC-R11-CV","docket_id":68004235,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:16:55.953013Z","date_created":"2023-11-14T19:18:28.419930Z","score":{"bm25":27.457174}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103417,103789,104200,170231,197918,203049,219732,537251,709024,736931,777613,1453198,1761140,2649076,2654532,2711484,4671322,5140257,5285336,6496025,9420188,9421664,9426935,9427178,9427738,9427742,9429523,9429579,9430020,9432253,9438449,9493486,9522188,9843648,9876893,10627442],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%20-%20M2021-00144-SC-R11-CV%20%28Corrected%29.pdf","id":9897594,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/09/28/roger_baskin_v._pierce__allred_construction_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T06:43:49.908482Z","date_created":"2023-11-14T19:18:28.422217Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d00047646b7eb3bcb84a750674ed05e691f08aa9","snippet":"                                                                                           09/28/2023\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE\n                            AT NASHVILLE\n                     November 9, 2022 Session Heard at Jackson\n\n     ROGER BASKIN v. PIERCE & ALLRED CONSTRUCTION, INC.\n\n                  Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals\n                        Chancery Court for Davidson County\n                  No. 20-872-IV    Russell T. Perkins, Chance","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9897594],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"In this appeal, we address whether a Tennessee resident may sue an Alabama corporation in a Tennessee court for alleged breach of contract and breach of warranty pertaining to its construction of a custom lake house in Alabama. Tennessee resident Roger Baskin hired Pierce & Allred Construction, an Alabama corporation with its principal place of business in Alabama, to build a house on a parcel of land in Alabama. Mr. Baskin supplied the architectural plans and some of the materials, all sourced from Tennessee, and the parties communicated throughout the project from their respective states. However, all of Pierce & Allred Construction's activities on the project occurred in Alabama. Mr. Baskin ultimately became dissatisfied with the quality and expense of the construction work, and he filed suit in the Davidson County Chancery Court. Pierce & Allred Construction moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the corporation lacked the \"minimum contacts\" with Tennessee that due process protections require. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The trial court granted the motion, finding that the events relevant to the claims occurred in Alabama and that the corporation's contacts with Tennessee were minor and attenuated. The Court of Appeals reversed, looking to recent decisions from this Court, see Crouch Ry. Consulting, LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC, 610 S.W.3d 460 (Tenn. 2020), and the United States Supreme Court, see Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (explaining that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction requires that a plaintiff's claim arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum contacts). We granted permission to appeal. Based on our review, we have determined that Pierce & Allred Construction's contacts with Tennessee were not such that the corporation reasonably should have anticipated being haled into a Tennessee court to answer this suit. In making this determination, we conclude that certain contacts with Tennessee did not reflect that the corporation purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business activities in Tennessee, while certain other contacts were not sufficiently related to Mr. Baskin's claims to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. Thus, we hold that Mr. Baskin failed to establish a prima facie case of the minimum contacts necessary for a Tennessee court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Alabama corporation. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court dismissing Mr. Baskin's complaint."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8165908/sunset-presbyterian-church-v-andersen-construction-co/","attorney":"Daniel T. Goldstein argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent. With him on the briefs were Phillip E. Joseph, James C. Prichard, and Ball Janik LLP., Thomas M. Christ argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant. With him on the briefs were Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP, Julie L. O’Brien, and Wiles Law Group LLC., No appearance for cross-respondent Andersen Construction Company.","caseName":"Sunset Presbyterian Church v. Andersen Construction Co.","caseNameFull":"SUNSET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, an Oregon non-profit corporation v. ANDERSEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, Defendant-Cross-Respondent, and B & B TILE AND MASONRY CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Respondent and DELTA DRYWALL, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendants ANDERSEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Third-Party v. DELTA DRYWALL, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Third-Party","citation":["268 Or. App. 309","341 P.3d 192","2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1841"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":8165908,"court":"Court of Appeals of Oregon","court_citation_string":"Or. Ct. App.","court_id":"orctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-12-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C106643CV; A153158","docket_id":65262155,"judge":"Hadlock, Sercombe, Tookey","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T17:22:30.504361Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T16:01:09.910255Z","score":{"bm25":26.624926}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8127622,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T01:27:44.351605Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T16:01:09.923611Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nHADLOCK, J.\nThis construction-defect case began when Sunset Presbyterian Church (Sunset) filed an action against its general contractor, Andersen Construction Company (Andersen). Andersen, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including B&B Tile and Masonry Corporation (B&B). Sunset and Andersen settled, and Andersen assigned its third-party claims against the subcontractors to Sunset. The ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8127622],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/778751/virtual-countries-inc-v-republic-of-south-africa-a-foreign-state-and/","attorney":"Maxim H. Waldbaum, Salans Hertzfeld Heilbronn Christy & Viener (Lora A. Mof-fatt, Lori D. Greendorfer, and Joseph E. Petersen, of counsel), New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant., David B. Goldstein, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, New York, N.Y. (Roger Bearden, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, New York, NY, and Terry Gross, Gross & Belsky LLP, San Francisco, CA, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees.","caseName":"Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of South Africa, a Foreign State, and South African Tourism Board, an Agency or Instrumentality of a Foreign State","caseNameFull":"VIRTUAL COUNTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, a Foreign State, and South African Tourism Board, an Agency or Instrumentality of a Foreign State, Defendants-Appellees","citation":["300 F.3d 230","63 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1993","2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16026","2002 WL 1807215"],"citeCount":83,"cluster_id":778751,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2002-08-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Docket 01-7900","docket_id":1962385,"judge":"Miner, Sack, Berman","lexisCite":"2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16026","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-12-05T19:38:00.919302Z","date_created":"2015-09-24T20:22:55.740283Z","score":{"bm25":26.354273}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[14870,112748,112834,199715,499447,534573,571263,605536,611611,661708,672299,755551,767492,769033,772183,776235,2523089,2567828,6976543,9132119],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/300/300.F3d.230.01-7900.html","id":778751,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T13:36:57.800625Z","date_created":"2012-04-18T13:07:58Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"18df51a405c0da455e35ce8818182e5ab1ba7331","snippet":"\n\n\n  SACK, Circuit Judge.\n \n\n  Plaintiff Virtual Countries, Inc., appeals from a June 28, 2001 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Allen G. Schwartz,\n  \n   Judge)\n  \n  that dismissed its petition for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, based on the court’s conclusion that defendants Republic of South Afr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[778751],"source":"RU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8714246/bank-of-new-york-mellon-corp-false-claims-act-foreign-exchange-litigation/","attorney":"Daniel P. Chiplock, Steven Eliott Fine-man, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY, Lexi Joy Hazam, Esq., Richard Martin Heimann, Robert Lawrence Lieff, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Michael A. Lesser, Michael P. Thornton, Thornton & Naumes LLP, Boston, MA, Philip Roy Michael, Michael Law Group, Bronx, NY, Steven Noel Williams, Eric James Buescher, Niall Padraic McCarthy, Victor Santiago Elias, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Burlingame, CA, Steven Paul Rice, Crowell & Moring LLP, Irvine, CA, Fred A. Silva, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Modesto, CA, for Plaintiffs., David M. Balabanian, Frank H. Busch, Bingham McCutchen LLP, San Francisco, CA, Reid Mason Figel, David Lawrence Schwarz, Derek T. Ho, Gregory G. Rapawy, Rebecca Beynon, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Defendants.","caseName":"Bank of New York Mellon Corp. False Claims Act Foreign Exchange Litigation ex rel. FX Analytics v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.","caseNameFull":"In re BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION FALSE CLAIMS ACT FOREIGN EXCHANGE LITIGATION, Ex rel. FX Analytics, Los Angeles County Employee Retirement Association, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Retirement Plan, San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, and Stanislaus County Employee Retirement Association, Plaintiff/Relator/Intervenors v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive","citation":["851 F. Supp. 2d 1190","2012 WL 1071132","2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45558"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":8714246,"court":"District Court, N.D. California","court_citation_string":"N.D. Cal.","court_id":"cand","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-03-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. C 11-5683 WHA","docket_id":65980159,"judge":"Alsup","lexisCite":"2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45558","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:06:12.759028Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T05:06:56.910214Z","score":{"bm25":25.957233}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108566,112115,145730,145875,260796,657236,718281,720606,1156417,1301891,2244102,2244400,2251012,2255475,2256245,2256921,2257115,2259379,2276978,2567359,2575141,2625862,2633633,5664895,5665380],"download_url":null,"id":8697439,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:24:17.188554Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T05:06:56.916928Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS\nWILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.\nINTRODUCTION\nIn this action for breach of contract and related claims, defendants move to dismiss. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion is Granted in part and Denied in part.\nSTATEMENT\nQui tam plaintiff (or “relator”) FX Anal","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8697439],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5093453/serpanok-construction-inc-v-point-ruston-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Serpanok Construction, Inc., V. Point Ruston, Llc","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5093453,"court":"Court of Appeals of Washington","court_citation_string":"Wash. Ct. App.","court_id":"washctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-09-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"54413-0","docket_id":60383052,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:42:05.484238Z","date_created":"2021-09-14T17:35:36.574105Z","score":{"bm25":25.467361}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118392,339115,1169331,1173631,1178089,1201428,1226315,1277040,1378631,2387101,2459924,2571452,2584262,2594803,2595345,2598461,2600179,2606176,2621897,2629607,3999458,4712824,4713642,4713818,4713971,4714241,4714404,4714856,4720579],"download_url":"http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2 54413-0-II Published Opinion.pdf","id":4910838,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/09/14/serpanok_construction_inc._v._point_ruston_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:40:43.933992Z","date_created":"2021-09-14T17:35:36.577621Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"29462cc7c7e7ecd1719477eb54d5920143741cec","snippet":"                                                                                          Filed\n                                                                                    Washington State\n                                                                                    Court of Appeals\n                                                                                     Division Two\n\n                                                     September 14, 2021\n       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4910838],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4291062/the-port-of-houston-authority-of-harris-county-texas-v-zachry/","attorney":"","caseName":"the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas v. Zachry Construction Corporation","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4291062,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp14","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-06-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14-10-00708-CV","docket_id":4457636,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T11:38:50.344311Z","date_created":"2016-09-29T23:48:54.851508Z","score":{"bm25":25.17877}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[99644,118467,145754,398711,586854,754248,786062,894487,894512,894515,894594,894617,894667,894678,894690,894726,894775,894823,894940,894951,895009,895096,895161,895197,895198,895256,895258,895269,895307,895308,895309,895311,895349,895363,895380,895405,1138852,1266564,1288968,1370476,1376467,1376552,1376570,1377553,1383123,1383232,1399904,1400009,1426779,1440049,1443838,1447185,1449946,1463491,1467050,1467145,1472904,1492572,1496294,1502612,1504609,1505643,1506362,1507983,1508020,1509959,1512874,1514858,1515227,1521192,1564400,1568684,1572837,1576263,1589619,1591186,1594643,1618876,1620661,1620793,1621057,1623996,1628285,1629825,1633520,1635395,1635839,1636890,1637703,1638777,1654904,1663301,1664581,1667778,1677111,1682136,1683205,1686277,1687157,1707595,1718950,1726063,1731074,1742776,1748175,1749669,1760462,1763360,1766885,1768079,1780418,1780915,1782452,1788747,1859502,1860926,1868645,1871140,1873103,1876270,1880125,1959288,1987708,1989032,1990126,1993206,2047857,2099504,2102131,2103439,2105618,2185004,2189963,2270366,2270992,2279991,2287450,2291928,2332835,2336260,2342387,2342691,2358050,2358586,2365131,2373111,2379200,2382125,2382247,2385238,2385579,2385703,2388221,2389600,2393582,2401418,2402970,2406058,2408903,2411524,2419077,2424152,2427543,2429794,2430766,2431368,2432195,2434188,2436793,2441963,2442417,2449929,2450513,2455763,2457857,2461826,2539741,2541052,2545413,2600610,2620886,2621688,3683929,3904467,3911267,3938835,3965665,3971077,3978640],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=83713&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa01%5cOpinion","id":4068323,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/06/12/the_port_of_houston_authority_of_harris_county_texas_v._zachry.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T11:38:50.361188Z","date_created":"2016-09-29T23:48:54.859278Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8941db1559173f5f2e638ec795cc62b634f7b576","snippet":"                                                                                     ACCEPTED\n                                                                                 14-10-00708-CV\n                                                                 FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS\n                                                                              HOUSTON, TEXAS\n                                                                            6/12/2015 5:04:25 PM\n                           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4068323],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2586519/taylor-v-ramsay-gerding-construction-co/","attorney":"James N. Westwood and Stoel Rives LLP and David A. Hilgemann and Law Offices of David A. Hilgemann for appellants - cross-respondents., Todd S. Baran for respondent - cross-appellant., Ralph C. Spooner, Melissa J. Ward, and Spooner & Much, P.C., for amicus curiae Ramsay-Gerding Construction Company.","caseName":"Taylor v. Ramsay-Gerding Construction Co.","caseNameFull":"H. H. TAYLOR, C. A. Taylor, and Taylor & Taylor, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Respondents, v. RAMSAY-GERDING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, Defendant, and CHEMREX, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Respondent Cross-Appellant; RAMSAY-GERDING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. TFC ENTERPRISES, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Dba Finishers Drywall; ChemRex, Inc., a Foreign Corporation; Century West Engineering Corporation, an Oregon Corporation; Wyatt Architects and Associates, P. S.; And Donald Trail, Third-Party Defendants","citation":["226 P.3d 45","233 Or. App. 272","2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 24"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":2586519,"court":"Court of Appeals of Oregon","court_citation_string":"Or. Ct. App.","court_id":"orctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-01-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"015188, A127434","docket_id":411541,"judge":"Schuman, Landau, Ortega","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:10:17.799229Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T09:16:10.719248Z","score":{"bm25":24.446726}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8195,"cites":[835174,835233,836268,836466,836509,1238087,1266367,1317502,1359419,1418760,2584151,2597302,2615185,2622285,2625646,3841887],"download_url":null,"id":2586519,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:57:08.261957Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T10:53:33.634670Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"305138dc7534483ce7e5f76253ae2f1bac73808e","snippet":"\n226 P.3d 45 (2010)\n233 Or. App. 272\nH.H. TAYLOR, C.A. Taylor, and Taylor & Taylor, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Respondents,\nv.\nRAMSAY-GERDING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Defendant, and\nChemrex, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant-Respondent Cross-Appellant.\nRamsay-Gerding Construction Company, an Oregon corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff,\nv.\nTFC Enterpris","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2586519],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4603809/aquaseal-resurfacing-llc-v-jefcoat-recreation-and-construction-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"AquaSeal Resurfacing LLC v. Jefcoat Recreation and Construction Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4603809,"court":"Court of Appeals of Mississippi","court_citation_string":"Miss. Ct. App.","court_id":"missctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-03-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2018-CA-00060-COA","docket_id":14801399,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:31:45.120090Z","date_created":"2019-03-26T19:07:30.385711Z","score":{"bm25":24.446566}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104200,111429,750106],"download_url":"http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO135903.pdf","id":4381062,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/03/26/aquaseal_resurfacing_llc_v._jefcoat_recreation_and_construction_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:12:56.756738Z","date_created":"2019-03-26T19:07:30.392418Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4ea20007a857436ccef50c965c8ccfffe104f1b8","snippet":"         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI\n\n                                NO. 2018-CA-00060-COA\n\nAQUASEAL RESURFACING LLC                                                     APPELLANT\n\nv.\n\nJEFCOAT RECREATION AND\nCONSTRUCTION INC. AND DOYLE JEFCOAT                                           APPELLEES\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:                           12/12/2017\nTRIAL JUDGE:                                HON. STEVE S. RATCLIFF III\nCOURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:                  RANKIN CO","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4381062],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}