{"count":149542,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz00MS4yMjk3MzYmcz04ODU2NDgmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wOS0yOCZwPTI%3D&q=CREATION+AND+EXISTENCE&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10665570/whether-the-creation-of-natcast-violates-the-government-corporation-control/","attorney":"","caseName":"Whether the Creation of Natcast Violates the Government Corporation Control Act","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10665570,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-09-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":71263785,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T23:00:20.470107Z","date_created":"2025-09-03T23:00:20.303771Z","score":{"bm25":170.90053}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[748802,2644672,4260146,4879298,9420060,9433083,9434817,9492190,9500502,9806335],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1412911/dl","id":11132157,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/09/02/whether_the_creation_of_natcast_violates_the_government_corporation_control.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T03:07:22.742055Z","date_created":"2025-09-03T23:00:20.320066Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6f03a4824ba888332054f67cd24c44d3c6b41045","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n              Whether the Creation of Natcast Violates\n              the Government Corporation Control Act\nThe Government Corporation Control Act applies to an agency that brings a corporation\n  into existence, even if the agency does not retain ownership of or control over the\n  corporation.\nAn agency cannot avoid the strictures of the Government Corporation Control Act by\n  enlisting private individuals as proxies to incorporate an entity that would otherwise\n  violate the Gov","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11132157],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Government Corporation Control Act applies to an agency that brings a corporation into existence, even if the agency does not retain ownership of or control over the corporation."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9409951/ani-creation-v-city-of-myrtle-beach/","attorney":"","caseName":"Ani Creation v. City of Myrtle Beach","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9409951,"court":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C.","court_id":"sc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2021-001074","docket_id":67534803,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-03T15:05:30.146870Z","date_created":"2023-06-28T15:15:07.521049Z","score":{"bm25":81.502205}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103842,109924,112763,118031,118459,118498,142894,1203319,1205227,1207395,1220592,1264285,1273197,1284235,1287440,1302242,1315331,1334855,1339197,1340009,1358171,1358938,1364874,1376835,1404810,1410103,1583363,2393767,2505709,4181052,8294912,8295020],"download_url":"http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/28151.pdf","id":9405427,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/06/28/ani_creation_v._city_of_myrtle_beach.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:26:04.492916Z","date_created":"2023-06-28T15:15:07.522781Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dfe64d857c1786b7b1d1c320285d1905549e8120","snippet":"        The Supreme Court of South Carolina\n             Ani Creation, Inc. d/b/a Rasta: Ani Creation, Inc. d/b/a\n             Wacky T's; Blue Smoke, LLC d/b/a Doctor Vape: Blue\n             Smoke, LLC d/b/a Blue Smoke Vape Shop; ABNME,\n             LLC d/b/a Best for Less; Koretzky, LLC d/b/a\n             Grasshopper; Red Hot Shoppe, Inc.; E.T. Sportswear, Inc,\n             d/b/a Pacific Beachwear; Myrtle Beach General Store,\n             LLC; I Am It, Inc. d/b/a T-Shirt King; and Blue Bay\n    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9405427],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Court finds Myrtle Beach's ordinance creating an overlay zoning district in the city's historic downtown area is constitutional."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8404050/creation-supply-inc-v-selective-insurance-company-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Creation Supply, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of","caseNameFull":"","citation":["51 F.4th 759"],"citeCount":12,"cluster_id":8404050,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"7th Cir.","court_id":"ca7","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-10-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-3172","docket_id":65588587,"judge":"Scudder","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:51:13.191828Z","date_created":"2022-10-19T15:00:23.948504Z","score":{"bm25":78.35905}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8633,"cites":[778229,1189153,2027321,2078018,2206667,2215629,4346272,4424027,4681093,9533005,9745526],"download_url":"http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2022/D10-19/C:21-3172:J:Scudder:aut:T:fnOp:N:2948228:S:0","id":8374393,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/10/19/creation_supply_inc._v._selective_insurance_company_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T03:39:05.395289Z","date_created":"2022-10-19T15:00:23.957192Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6a9f6ae1271aa0dec1e2b6f75f93528d076f9b1b","snippet":"                               In the\n\n    United States Court of Appeals\n                 For the Seventh Circuit\n                     ____________________\nNo. 21-3172\nCREATION SUPPLY, INC.,\n                                                  Plaintiff-Appellant,\n                                 v.\n\nSELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST,\n                                      Defendant-Appellee.\n                     ____________________\n\n         Appeal from the United States District Court","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8374393],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4877369/creation-supply-inc-v-selective-insurance-company-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Creation Supply, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4877369,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"7th Cir.","court_id":"ca7","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-04-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-2509","docket_id":59854696,"judge":"Kanne","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:48:12.945657Z","date_created":"2021-04-26T22:00:43.167151Z","score":{"bm25":75.050415}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1700,"cites":[179414,2008825,2066866,2149070,2199515,2223312,2241270,2440065],"download_url":"http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D04-26/C:20-2509:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2695268:S:0","id":4681148,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/04/26/creation_supply_inc._v._selective_insurance_company_of_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T19:56:15.908505Z","date_created":"2021-04-26T22:00:43.175094Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b4276da69d05e536cfe6a340b258ea369dd861a5","snippet":"                               In the\n\n    United States Court of Appeals\n                 For the Seventh Circuit\n                     ____________________\nNo. 20-2509\nCREATION SUPPLY, INC.,\n                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee,\n                                 v.\n\nSELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST,\n                                     Defendant-Appellant.\n                     ____________________\n\n         Appeal from the United States District Court","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4681148],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4877314/creation-supply-inc-v-selective-insurance-company-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Creation Supply, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of","caseNameFull":"","citation":["995 F.3d 576"],"citeCount":16,"cluster_id":4877314,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"7th Cir.","court_id":"ca7","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-04-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-2509","docket_id":59854046,"judge":"Kanne","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T22:01:11.254385Z","date_created":"2021-04-26T20:03:02.432481Z","score":{"bm25":71.95599}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1700,"cites":[179414,2008825,2066866,2149070,2199515,2223312,2241270,2440065],"download_url":"http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D04-26/C:20-2509:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2695268:S:0","id":4681093,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/04/26/creation_supply_inc._v._selective_insurance_company_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T22:01:11.217477Z","date_created":"2021-04-26T20:03:02.446769Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"91b1ee3c5451970774888cc4d813d29b186c0f05","snippet":"                               In the\n\n    United States Court of Appeals\n                 For the Seventh Circuit\n                     ____________________\nNo. 20-2509\nCREATION SUPPLY, INC.,\n                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee,\n                                 v.\n\nSELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST,\n                                     Defendant-Appellant.\n                     ____________________\n\n         Appeal from the United States District Court","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4681093],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4678407/aeg-power-solutions-gmbh-v-creation-technologies-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"AEG Power Solutions GmbH v. Creation Technologies LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4678407,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Dallas","court_id":"txctapp5","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-11-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"05-19-00195-CV","docket_id":16465424,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:24:57.976660Z","date_created":"2019-11-14T11:12:51.468974Z","score":{"bm25":67.50878}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[18488,104200,105728,111117,111159,894827,895089,895192,895205,1192394,1987937,2461278],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=88228&Index=%5c%5coca%2dpsql12%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa05%5cOpinion","id":4455660,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/11/12/aeg_power_solutions_gmbh_v._creation_technologies_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:24:57.972821Z","date_created":"2019-11-14T11:12:51.472383Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d454edc00cf601d225ff52e8616d872f54d6bff0","snippet":"Reverse and Render; Opinion Filed November 12, 2019\n\n\n\n\n                                             In The\n                               Court of Appeals\n                        Fifth District of Texas at Dallas\n                                      No. 05-19-00195-CV\n\n                     AEG POWER SOLUTIONS GMBH, Appellant\n                                    V.\n                  CREATION TECHNOLOGIES TEXAS, LLC, Appellee\n\n                       On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4455660],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4395404/in-re-creation-of-park-dist-within-chester-twp/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Creation of Park Dist. Within Chester Twp.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2017 Ohio 4031"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4395404,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-05-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2016-G-0082","docket_id":6067138,"judge":"Gallagher","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:32:42.911971Z","date_created":"2017-05-30T19:30:01.898276Z","score":{"bm25":65.66143}},"neutralCite":"2017 Ohio 4031","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2690286,3162529,3194004,3729181,3752542,3785278,4016833,4172587],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2017/2017-Ohio-4031.pdf","id":4172657,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/05/30/in_re_creation_of_park_dist._within_chester_twp._1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:48:05.399392Z","date_created":"2017-05-30T19:30:01.911929Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"86a2ab8d34024bb2b752d980f484ad8401d77150","snippet":"[Cite as In re Creation of Park Dist. Within Chester Twp., 2017-Ohio-4031.]\n\n                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n                                      GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO\n\n\nIN THE MATTER OF THE\nCREATION OF A PARK                                         OPINION\nDISTRICT WITHIN\nCHESTER TOWNSHIP                                           CASE NO. 2016-G-0082\n\n\n\n\nAppeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4172657],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"PROBATE - R.C. Chapter 1545 park district jurisdiction R.C. 2101.06 master commissioner continuing jurisdiction plenary power. Probate courts maintain continuing jurisdiction to consider the removal of a park district's commissioners under R.C. 1545.06, but exceed that jurisdiction by imposing the fees of the master commissioner against an unrelated, independent political agency and by considering the validity of a contractual agreement entered under R.C. 1545.14."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8721326/too-marker-products-inc-v-creation-supply-inc/","attorney":"Timothy S. Dejong, Jacob S. Gill, Stoll Berne Lokting & Lachter P.C., Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs., Edward L. Bishop, Nicholas S. Lee, Richard J. Vangelisti, Bishop & Diehl, Ltd., Schaumburg, IL, for Creation Supply, Inc., Byung H. Whang, B.H. Whang & Associates, Ltd., Schaumburg, IL, Susan D. Pitchford, Robert H. Lyman, Chernoff Vilhauer McClung and Stenzel, LLP, Portland, OR, for Alpha Art Materials, Co. LTD.","caseName":"Too Marker Products, Inc. v. Creation Supply, Inc.","caseNameFull":"TOO MARKER PRODUCTS, INC., and Imagination International, Inc. v. CREATION SUPPLY, INC., Defendant Creation Supply, Inc., Third-Party v. Alpha Art Materials Co., Ltd., Third-Party","citation":["911 F. Supp. 2d 1114","2012 WL 5984664"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":8721326,"court":"District Court, D. Oregon","court_citation_string":"D. Or.","court_id":"ord","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-11-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 3-12-CV-735-BR","docket_id":65987248,"judge":"Brown","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:08:58.800029Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T06:09:19.440001Z","score":{"bm25":65.46461}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8704519,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:26:53.870581Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T06:09:19.444678Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION AND ORDER\nANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.\nThis matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion (# 36) to Dismiss Defendant’s Third Counterclaim for Tortious Interference for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and DISMISSES Defendant’s Third Counterclaim for Tortious Interference. The Court also ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8704519],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4678402/creation-technologies-texas-llc-v-aeg-power-solutions-b-v/","attorney":"","caseName":"Creation Technologies Texas, LLC v. AEG Power Solutions B v.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4678402,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Dallas","court_id":"txctapp5","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-11-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"05-19-00331-CV","docket_id":16465419,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:24:57.702400Z","date_created":"2019-11-14T11:12:48.042507Z","score":{"bm25":65.07194}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104200,105728,111159,219732,894827,894898,895089,895192,895205,1404975,1496364,1512236,1987937,2461278],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=88221&Index=%5c%5coca%2dpsql12%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa05%5cOpinion","id":4455655,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/11/12/creation_technologies_texas_llc_v._aeg_power_solutions_b_v..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:24:57.702380Z","date_created":"2019-11-14T11:12:48.045869Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ed0fa292c02df50c646797a5c6c80dcc0d804a2c","snippet":"Modify and affirm as modified; Opinion Filed November 12, 2019\n\n\n\n\n                                            In The\n                               Court of Appeals\n                        Fifth District of Texas at Dallas\n                                     No. 05-19-00331-CV\n\n                 CREATION TECHNOLOGIES TEXAS, LLC, Appellant\n                                   V.\n                     AEG POWER SOLUTIONS B.V., Appellee\n\n                      On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4455655],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4395334/in-re-creation-of-a-park-dist-within-chester-twp/","attorney":"\n  Frank H. Scialdone and Todd M. Raskin, Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., 100 Franklin's Row, 34305 Solon Road, Solon, Ohio 44139; Bridey Matheney, Assistant Prosecutor, 231 Main Street, Suite 3A, Chardon, Ohio 44024, (For Appellant-Chester Township Board of Trustees).\n , \n  James M. Gillette, City of Chardon Police Prosecutor, PNC Bank Building, 117 South Street, Suite 208, Chardon, Ohio 44024, (For Appellee-Chester Township Park District Board of Commissioners).\n ","caseName":"In Re Creation of a Park Dist. Within Chester Twp.","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF the CREATION OF a PARK DISTRICT WITHIN CHESTER TOWNSHIP","citation":["2017 Ohio 4031","91 N.E.3d 26"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4395334,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-05-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"NO. 2016–G–0082","docket_id":6067047,"judge":"Gallagher","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:32:39.639989Z","date_created":"2017-05-30T16:16:08.204207Z","score":{"bm25":64.91622}},"neutralCite":"2017 Ohio 4031","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2690286,3162529,3194004,3729181,3752542,3785278,4016833,4172657],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2017/2017-Ohio-4031.pdf","id":4172587,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/05/30/in_re_creation_of_park_dist._within_chester_twp..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:48:03.032682Z","date_created":"2017-05-30T16:16:08.223961Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"273b5a9763193afcdce2d4651deec5ef1a341663","snippet":"\n\n\n  SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., Eighth Appellate District, sitting by assignment.\n \n\n  {¶ 1} The core of this appeal is the extent of the probate court's jurisdiction over a judicially created park district under R.C. Chapter 1545. The probate court invoked its own continuing jurisdiction in a case initiated by the Chester Township Board of Trustees (\"Trustees\") in 1984 to create the Chester Townsh","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4172587],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"PROBATE - R.C. Chapter 1545 park district jurisdiction R.C. 2101.06 master commissioner continuing jurisdiction plenary power. Probate courts maintain continuing jurisdiction to consider the removal of a park district's commissioners under R.C. 1545.06, but exceed that jurisdiction by imposing the fees of the master commissioner against an unrelated, independent political agency and by considering the validity of a contractual agreement entered under R.C. 1545.14."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2032526/in-re-creation-of-conservancy-dist/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Creation of Conservancy Dist.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["875 N.E.2d 222"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2032526,"court":"Indiana Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ind. Ct. App.","court_id":"indctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-10-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"50A04-0612-CV-694","docket_id":1853919,"judge":"Baker","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T08:14:32.648176Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T19:59:24.828812Z","score":{"bm25":59.475933}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":7254,"cites":[852536,853421,2118462,2149780],"download_url":null,"id":2032526,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T16:12:07.109432Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:06:52.386618Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d741552b2144e459d1b4332b152b6af0f709bddf","snippet":"\n875 N.E.2d 222 (2007)\nIn re the Petition for the CREATION OF SOUTH-WEST LAKE MAXINKUCKEE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT.\nJohn Crist, Appellant-Intervenor,\nv.\nSouth-West Lake Maxinkuckee Conservancy District, Appellee.\nNo. 50A04-0612-CV-694.\nCourt of Appeals of Indiana.\nOctober 22, 2007.\n*224 Stanley F. Wruble III, Leone Halpin, LLP, So","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2032526],"source":"L","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2372685/broussard-v-great-creation-shipping-ltd/","attorney":"Alan Guy Brackett, Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for ConAgra Foods Inc, Defendant., Patrick E. Costello, Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for ConAgra Foods Inc, Defendant., Laurence R. DeBuys, IV, Reich, Meeks & Treadaway, LLC (Mandeville), Mande-ville, LA, for Great Creation Shipping Limited, Defendant., A. Remy Fransen, Fransen & Hardin, New Orleans, LA, for James S Broussard, Plaintiff., Christopher Joseph Fransen, Fransen & Hardin, New Orleans, LA, for James S Broussard, Plaintiff., Derek Mikel Mercer, Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for ConAgra Foods Inc, Defendant., Michael Wayne Whitehead, Michael W. Whitehead, LLC, Covington, LA, for BPE Inc, Employers Self Insurers Fund, Inter-venors.","caseName":"Broussard v. GREAT CREATION SHIPPING LTD.","caseNameFull":"James S. BROUSSARD v. GREAT CREATION SHIPPING LIMITED, Et Al.","citation":["410 F. Supp. 2d 498","2005 A.M.C. 636","2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29197","2005 WL 3695760"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2372685,"court":"District Court, E.D. Louisiana","court_citation_string":"E.D. La.","court_id":"laed","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2005-01-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CIV.A. 03-2171","docket_id":2216735,"judge":"Duval","lexisCite":"2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29197","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:08:22.273360Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:42:15.394384Z","score":{"bm25":56.701553}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":948,"cites":[104287,105337,111620,111719,111722,300663,314866,353819,388211,412648,439249,493920,546115,1572371],"download_url":null,"id":2372685,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:10:07.645122Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:16:45.907421Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f8086ca213ed432be51a02034d30c2089bcc6957","snippet":"\n410 F.Supp.2d 498 (2005)\nJames S. BROUSSARD\nv.\nGREAT CREATION SHIPPING LIMITED, et al.\nNo. CIV.A. 03-2171.\nUnited States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.\nJanuary 4, 2005.\nAlan Guy Brackett, Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for ConAgra Foods Inc, Defendant.\nPatrick E. Costello, Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC, New Or","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2372685],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2977698/answers-in-genesis-of-kentucky-v-creation-ministri/","attorney":"","caseName":"Answers in Genesis of Kentucky v. Creation Ministries Internatio","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2977698,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","court_citation_string":"6th Cir.","court_id":"ca6","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-02-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"08-6032","docket_id":2834917,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T16:26:36.994124Z","date_created":"2015-09-22T18:33:47.089003Z","score":{"bm25":49.357014}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109405,111361,321123,451562,536218,578174,670640,671506,768472,784273,787613,794083,794416,1200220,1270176,1316112,1612393],"download_url":"http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0055p-06.pdf","id":2977698,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2009/02/13/answers_in_genesis_of_kentucky_v._creation_ministries_internatio.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T01:35:08.131679Z","date_created":"2015-09-22T18:12:26.227557Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3413bcaca5c983de935893772e8a6776e3b20916","snippet":"                        RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n                             Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206\n                                     File Name: 09a0055p.06\n\n                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n                                 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n                                   _________________\n\n\n                                                  X\n          Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, -\n ANSWERS IN GENESIS OF KENTUCKY, INC.,\n                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2977698],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1074114/project-creation-inc-v-kenneth-neal/","attorney":"","caseName":"Project Creation, Inc. v. Kenneth Neal","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":1074114,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2000-04-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M1999-01272-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":1009903,"judge":"Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T01:37:52.903494Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T13:45:04.925347Z","score":{"bm25":48.525978}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8267,"cites":[112457,112539,758577,1074410,1079167,1079274,1523032,2452167],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/OPINIONS/TCA/PDF/013/ProjectCreation.pdf","id":1074114,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2000/04/12/project_creation_inc._v._kenneth_neal.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:27:52.524903Z","date_created":"2013-10-09T20:04:06.889008Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"cda1d03f292376cdbd898bf47f8aca8ded180c1d","snippet":"                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                             AT NASHVILLE\n                                    April 12, 2000 Session\n\n       PROJECT CREATION, INC., ET AL. v. KENNETH NEAL, ET AL.\n\n                       Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wilson County\n                          No. 10352    John O. Wootton, Jr., Judge\n\n\n\n                    No. M1999-01272-COA-R3-CV - Filed August 21, 2001\n\n\nThe trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ libel action and then granted ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1074114],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4834624/in-re-determination-of-existence-of-significantly-excessive-earnings-for/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Determination of Existence of Significantly Excessive Earnings for 2017 Under the Elec. Sec. Plan of Ohio Edison Co. (Slip Opinion)","caseNameFull":"","citation":["162 Ohio St. 3d 651","166 N.E.3d 1191","2020 Ohio 5450"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4834624,"court":"Ohio Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ohio","court_id":"ohio","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-12-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2019-0961","docket_id":18701866,"judge":"Stewart, J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:03:34.470755Z","date_created":"2020-12-01T14:11:04.063437Z","score":{"bm25":48.338062}},"neutralCite":"2020 Ohio 5450","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":5395,"cites":[84759,102823,111221,839160,2674679,2691173,2691254,2691637,2723197,2748126,2812587,3157402,4020099,4265368,4276947,4282331,4344673,4354400,4408134,4446675,6755478,6756054,6756545,6757030,6759949,6764699,6768534,6775396,6779304,6787358,6787715,6789792,6790590,7089495,7923423,7954797,9434121,9499981,9801137,9801366,9801516,9801556,9801794,9801935,9801974,9802127,9804153,9804393,9812709,9822816,9822818,9837606,9837696,9886675,10478848,11147453,11150158,11150397,11151507],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2020/2020-Ohio-5450.pdf","id":4638403,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/12/01/in_re_determination_of_existence_of_significantly_excessive_earnings_for.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T06:27:26.949518Z","date_created":"2020-12-01T14:11:04.070305Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"842140051391e1d16337cd494cea50f3a2f43d41","snippet":"[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In\nre Determination of Existence of Significantly Excessive Earnings for 2017 Under the Elec. Sec.\nPlan of Ohio Edison Co., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5450.]\n\n\n\n\n                                          NOTICE\n      This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an\n      advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to\n      promptly notify the Reporter of D","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4638403],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Public Utilities—R.C. 4928.143(F)—Public Utilities Commission should not have excluded the revenue from Ohio Edison Company's Distribution Modernization Rider in its annual earnings review of Ohio Edison's electric security plan—Cause remanded to the commission."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1465386/answers-in-genesis-of-kentucky-inc-v-creation-ministries-international/","attorney":"ARGUED: Richard Alan Getty, Getty & Childers, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Anthony J. Biller, Coats & Bennett, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Richard Alan Getty, Getty & Childers, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Anthony J. Biller, Coats & Bennett, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellee.","caseName":"Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, Inc. v. Creation Ministries International, Ltd.","caseNameFull":"ANSWERS IN GENESIS OF KENTUCKY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. CREATION MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee","citation":["556 F.3d 459","2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2743","2009 WL 348838"],"citeCount":382,"cluster_id":1465386,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","court_citation_string":"6th Cir.","court_id":"ca6","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-02-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"08-6014, 08-6032","docket_id":1490089,"judge":"Cole, Gibbons, Bell","lexisCite":"2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2743","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T04:02:17.864389Z","date_created":"2015-09-22T21:03:38.916064Z","score":{"bm25":47.866222}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[84779,109405,111361,321123,451562,536218,578174,670640,671506,768472,784273,787613,794083,794416,1200220,1270176,1316112],"download_url":null,"id":1465386,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T08:44:48.584989Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:21:46.177495Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fb5b6d125d7dc96d6e39cf2dbefb15405ed72231","snippet":"\n556 F.3d 459 (2009)\nANSWERS IN GENESIS OF KENTUCKY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,\nv.\nCREATION MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.\nNos. 08-6014, 08-6032.\nUnited States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.\nArgued: January 21, 2009.\nDecided and Filed: February 13, 2009.\n*461 A","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[672,1187],"panel_names":["Ransey Guy Cole Jr.","Julia Smith Gibbons"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1465386],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6214911/new-creation-fellowship-v-board-of-assessment-review/","attorney":"","caseName":"New Creation Fellowship v. Board of Assessment Review","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of New Creation Fellowship of Buffalo v. Board of Assessment Review","citation":["289 A.D.2d 1067","735 N.Y.S.2d 291","2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12782"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":6214911,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2001-12-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Appeal No. 1","docket_id":62575937,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:39:13.372665Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T18:51:26.058770Z","score":{"bm25":47.62597}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2589433,5532809],"download_url":null,"id":6081525,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T05:08:13.493610Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T18:51:26.073424Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nAmended order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of petitioner seeking summary judgment and directing that respondents exempt petitioner from all ad valorem taxes for tax years 1998 and 1999 with respect to a parcel of vacant land purchased by *1068petitioner. Petitioner is a religious corporation organized as a church under article 10 of the Re","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6081525],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2499044/allure-home-creation-co-inc-v-lamont-ltd/","attorney":"Frommer Lawrence & Haug L.L.P. by William F. Lawrence, Edgar H. Haug, James K. Stronslá, New York City, for Plaintiff., Hopgood, Calimafde, Kalil & ■ Judlowe L.L.P. by Dennis J. Mondolino, -Alan Feder-bush, Peter K. Trzyna, New York City, for Defendants.","caseName":"Allure Home Creation Co., Inc. v. Lamont Ltd.","caseNameFull":"ALLURE HOME CREATION CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. LAMONT LIMITED and Lamont International Inc., Defendants","citation":["12 F. Supp. 2d 287","1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8677","1998 WL 312733"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2499044,"court":"District Court, S.D. New York","court_citation_string":"S.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nysd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1998-06-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"97 Civ. 1290 (DC)","docket_id":2366483,"judge":"Chin","lexisCite":"1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8677","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:20:40.012244Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:39:52.948229Z","score":{"bm25":43.259525}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":607,"cites":[111620,111719,118019,118092,445651,662545,685204,695275,722611,746968,1401607,2249799,2389463],"download_url":null,"id":2499044,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:13:40.712074Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:57:22.563488Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"de3161f9f6ac6d4cb5de1ae8b5c13e495ea7d677","snippet":"\n12 F.Supp.2d 287 (1998)\nALLURE HOME CREATION CO., INC., Plaintiff,\nv.\nLAMONT LIMITED and Lamont International Inc., Defendants.\nNo. 97 Civ. 1290 (DC).\nUnited States District Court, S.D. New York.\nJune 12, 1998.\n*288 Frommer Lawrence & Haug L.L.P. by William F. Lawrence, Edgar H. Haug, James K. Stronski, New York City, for Pla","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2499044],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10283749/in-the-matter-of-the-verified-petition-for-the-proposed-creation-of-a-pk-12/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Verified Petition for the Proposed Creation of a Pk-12 All-Purpose Regional School District by the Borough of Seabright, Etc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10283749,"court":"New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division","court_citation_string":"N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.","court_id":"njsuperctappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-11-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-0716-23","docket_id":69414181,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-26T15:08:07.622128Z","date_created":"2024-11-26T15:08:07.564205Z","score":{"bm25":42.707783}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1560404,1896650,1921930,1931082,1954767,1982733,2090168,2108074,2324375,2324591,2554165,2676802,2763431,8227398],"download_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a0716-23.pdf","id":10750337,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/26/in_the_matter_of_the_verified_petition_for_the_proposed_creation_of_a_pk-12.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T18:53:17.220719Z","date_created":"2024-11-26T15:08:07.566280Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ccb15faeec28f80341ef24a70784114e85b7f79c","snippet":"             NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE\n            APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION\n\n                                SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY\n                                APPELLATE DIVISION\n                                DOCKET NO. A-0716-23\n\nI/M/O THE VERIFIED PETITION\nFOR THE PROPOSED\nCREATION OF A PK-12 ALL-\nPURPOSE REGIONAL SCHOOL\nDISTRICT BY THE BOROUGH\nOF SEA BRIGHT, BOROUGH OF            APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION\n\nHIGHLANDS, BOROUGH OF                      November 26, 2024","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10750337],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/885648/in-re-the-creation-of-the-office-of-discipline-counsel/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re the Creation of the Office of Discipline Counsel","caseNameFull":"In Re the Creation of the Office of Discipline Counsel; The the Adoption of Structural Changes to the Commission on Practice; And the Adoption of Changes to Montana’s System of Disciplining Lawyers","citation":["2001 MT 257","307 Mont. 210","53 P.3d 861","2001 Mont. LEXIS 518"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":885648,"court":"Montana Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Mont.","court_id":"mont","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2001-12-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":620629,"judge":"Gray, Nelson, Cotter, Leaphart, Trieweiler, Regnier, Rice","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T01:03:42.851549Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T10:58:54.581506Z","score":{"bm25":41.229736}},"neutralCite":"2001 MT 257","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://searchcourts.mt.gov/getDocument?vid={A7EC5D81-C7A0-4286-A0D2-EC9C2531F09F}","id":885648,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2001/12/11/matter_of_attorney_discipline_syste.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T19:17:57.164327Z","date_created":"2013-06-05T03:38:50.910218Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"75e015658de56466deba5e17721dfbfb4baa1c1a","snippet":"\n\n\n\n   Introduction\n  \n\n\n  ¶1 Over the past decade Montana’s system for disciplining lawyers has been studied, criticized, lauded and litigated. Some maintain that this system is not broken and does not need to be fixed. Others argue that flaws inherent in the structure of the system threaten the constitutional rights of those caught up in its p","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[885648],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}