{"count":4006,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xMC41MTE1OCZzPTExNjY2NDgmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wOC0yMiZwPTI%3D&q=DEMISEABLE+PROPERTY+TENANCIES&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2781942/laurel-kelly-as-martin-county-property-appraiser-and-ruth-pietruszewski/","attorney":"Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., and J. Christopher Woolsey of Law Offices of Wood & Stuart, P.A., Bunnell, for appellants., Donald H. Whittemore of Phelps Dunbar LLP, Tampa, for appellee.","caseName":"Laurel Kelly, as Martin County Property Appraiser, and Ruth Pietruszewski, as Martin County Tax Collector","caseNameFull":"Laurel KELLY, as Martin County Property Appraiser, and Ruth Pietruszewski, as Martin County Tax Collector, Appellants, v. Mary Jane SPAIN, Appellee","citation":["160 So. 3d 78","2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2614","2015 WL 774658"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2781942,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-02-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"4D14-510","docket_id":2636926,"judge":"Gross, Taylor, Levine","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-17T20:55:05.088450Z","date_created":"2015-02-25T17:01:41.436739Z","score":{"bm25":20.84197}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[536018,1088668,1096101,1150174,1563802,1570583,1590563,1609880,1620897,1699005,1704973,1724018,1813918,1827896,1840126,1850639,2551659],"download_url":"http://www.4dca.org/Website/opinions/Feb 2015/02-25-15/4D14-510.op.pdf","id":2781942,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/02/25/laurel_kelly_as_martin_county_property_appraiser_and_ruth_pietruszewski.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T23:11:31.058422Z","date_created":"2015-02-25T16:03:45.755815Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1124d637e11afa214a0cce3cbeb5789755f885de","snippet":"\n\n\n  GROSS, J.\n \n\n  Does a homestead exemption originally obtained by a husband alone inure to his wife’s benefit after his death, where (1) the property was held as a tenancy by the entireties, (2) the wife never filed for her own homestead exemption, and (3) the wife continuously maintained her permanent residence on the property before and after her husband’s death? Under Article VII of ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2781942],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10801537/krista-b-gue-v-triple-e-property-management-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Krista B Gue v. Triple E Property Management, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10801537,"court":"Indiana Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ind. Ct. App.","court_id":"indctapp","court_jurisdiction":"SA","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-02-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"25A-CT-00832","docket_id":72340467,"judge":"Foley, May, Altice","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-27T17:07:15.977525Z","date_created":"2026-02-27T17:07:15.845040Z","score":{"bm25":18.418476}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[852438,852925,1999128,2028955,2038605,2042469,2045796,2083354,2100763,2731311,2751435,4092784,4312214,4326156,7077302,9714611,9861156],"download_url":"https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=HCC-94mwp2hstoCElJAZJm87_oB4XUE38Z0tBYhzznxgtpy5EwtcIS-jjSHoqWhJ0","id":11268262,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/02/27/krista_b_gue_v._triple_e_property_management_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-27T17:07:28.662048Z","date_created":"2026-02-27T17:07:15.877042Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d929724bd0b011a6e7bbe6615c08a5e40861817e","snippet":"                                            IN THE\n\n            Court of Appeals of Indiana                                          FILED\n                                                                             Feb 27 2026, 8:26 am\n                                           Krista B. Gue,                        CLERK\n                                                                             Indiana Supreme Court\n                                Appellant/Cross-Appellee-Plaintiff           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11268262],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1582556/united-states-v-real-property-located-at-incline-village/","attorney":"Harry A. Harbin, Assistant Chief, Mark D. Rubino, Trial Atty., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Criminal Div., Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, Washington, DC, for U.S., Lawrence S. Robbins, Alan E. Untereiner, Robert L. Bronston, Mayer, Brown and Platt, Washington, DC, for Claimants Degen.","caseName":"United States v. Real Property Located at Incline Village","caseNameFull":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT INCLINE VILLAGE Et Al., Defendants","citation":["976 F. Supp. 1327","1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11146","1997 WL 431742"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":1582556,"court":"District Court, D. Nevada","court_citation_string":"D. Nev.","court_id":"nvd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1997-07-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CV-N-90-0130-ECR","docket_id":1647680,"judge":"Reed","lexisCite":"1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11146","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T04:46:48.431547Z","date_created":"2015-09-22T18:59:38.195639Z","score":{"bm25":13.681711}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2678,"cites":[84759,97670,107369,110895,111504,112074,112310,112311,112914,195400,275864,311437,363887,371011,371248,391425,398597,409622,498115,512457,533798,534255,534290,534872,540888,545279,549830,560426,561200,562334,568020,573132,580895,585892,588151,597563,628124,628309,659394,672407,675205,689911,690330,692027,692310,693404,696634,698685,699278,703252,705159,713088,715024,715877,719654,720621,724960,725141,733476,734136,735383,741729,1113549,1202311,1210023,1210205,1261125,1355474,1366614,1374343,1377263,1407963,1428029,1430262,1460967,1514843,1881549,2109417,2124292,2166530,2190109,2243478,2284039,2290969,2381515,2613035,2621067,3279144,3309428,3408687,3998896],"download_url":null,"id":1582556,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T10:01:45.205281Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:50:57.071353Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"be8ef903b2bfb5c2bbb4635796bc338887cb54e7","snippet":"\n976 F.Supp. 1327 (1997)\nUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,\nv.\nREAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT INCLINE VILLAGE et al., Defendants.\nNo. CV-N-90-0130-ECR.\nUnited States District Court, D. Nevada.\nApril 28, 1997.\nOrder Granting Reconsideration July 22, 1997.\n*1328 *1329 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1582556],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10624586/matter-of-atta-v-450-w-31st-owners-corp/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Atta v. 450 W. 31st Owners Corp.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 NY Slip Op 04042"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10624586,"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":"2025-07-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 651890/23; Appeal No. 4075; Case No. 2024-00263","docket_id":70732657,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-21T17:33:00.326620Z","date_created":"2025-07-08T18:10:38.724984Z","score":{"bm25":13.3260355}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2034763,4571459,5781742,9788112],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_04042.htm","id":11089366,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/07/03/matter_of_atta_v._450_w._31st_owners_corp..html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T21:11:20.147679Z","date_created":"2025-07-03T16:09:27.464956Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"45456f4feb50a880f9ecc8b86c07a10bd0cfa4bb","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Atta v 450 W. 31st Owners Corp. (2025 NY Slip Op 04042)\n\n\n\n\n\nMatter of Atta v 450 W. 31st Owners Corp.\n\n\n2025 NY Slip Op 04042\n\n\nDecided on July 03, 2025\n\n\nAppellate Division, First Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[2034763,4571459,5781742,9788112],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_04042.htm","id":11091174,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/07/03/matter_of_atta_v._450_w._31st_owners_corp._1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T22:01:57.443468Z","date_created":"2025-07-08T18:10:38.735285Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"008502d186eccea32e4b78391a3ca305f5c0dd91","snippet":"Matter of Atta v 450 W. 31st Owners Corp. (2025 NY Slip Op 04042)\n\n\n\n\n\nMatter of Atta v 450 W. 31st Owners Corp.\n\n\n2025 NY Slip Op 04042\n\n\nDecided on July 03, 2025\n\n\nAppellate Division, First Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11089366,11091174],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10293161/giancola-v-boyd/","attorney":"","caseName":"Giancola v. Boyd","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10293161,"court":"Vermont Superior Court","court_citation_string":"Vt. Super. Ct. ","court_id":"vtsuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-12-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24-cv-3073","docket_id":69470141,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-12-16T19:23:01.227107Z","date_created":"2024-12-16T19:23:01.177998Z","score":{"bm25":12.256636}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1043650,1462200,1539179,1977798,2303031,2558043,3149019,6581298,8171895,8172292,8172539,9980220],"download_url":"https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/18523","id":10759749,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/12/16/giancola_v._boyd.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:32:30.719707Z","date_created":"2024-12-16T19:23:01.179988Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6e0cdff4c1244630a83fb4949e868e0ba0205ac9","snippet":"                                                                                                7ermont Superior Court\n                                                                                                        Filed 12/10 24\n\n\n\n\nVERMONT SUPERIOR COURT                                                            CIVIL DIVISION\nRutland Unit                                                                   Case No. 24-CV-03073\n83 Center St\nRutland VT 05701\n802-775-4394\nwww.vermontjudicia","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10759749],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9392652/valco-bldg-maintenance-supplies-corp-v-werwaiss-co-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Valco Bldg. & Maintenance Supplies Corp. v. Werwaiss & Co., Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["215 A.D.3d 890","188 N.Y.S.3d 95","2023 NY Slip Op 02024"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9392652,"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":"2023-04-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 703938/14","docket_id":67224310,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T17:55:53.152431Z","date_created":"2023-04-19T20:06:54.145665Z","score":{"bm25":11.91816}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2060608,4023308,4673359,5527088,5535805,5670345,5691662],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_02024.htm","id":9388128,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/04/19/valco_bldg.__maintenance_supplies_corp._v._werwaiss__co._inc..html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T21:24:40.777866Z","date_created":"2023-04-19T20:06:54.148189Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a54cfc98c105160b52100c3a88d9ac2736526350","snippet":"\n\nValco Bldg. & Maintenance Supplies Corp. v Werwaiss & Co., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 02024)\n\n\n\n\n\nValco Bldg. & Maintenance Supplies Corp. v Werwaiss & Co., Inc.\n\n\n2023 NY Slip Op 02024\n\n\nDecided on April 19, 2023\n\n\nAppellate Division, Second Department\n\n\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9388128],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4859044/shirley-butler-v-kari-gavek/","attorney":"","caseName":"Shirley Butler v. Kari Gavek","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4859044,"court":"Supreme Court of Rhode Island","court_citation_string":"R.I.","court_id":"ri","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-02-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-124","docket_id":59682381,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:43:31.896999Z","date_created":"2021-02-25T16:13:06.560701Z","score":{"bm25":11.910656}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1470927,1903133,1951500,2165908,2173661,2204440,2402348,4952177],"download_url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/SupremeOpinions/19-124.pdf","id":4662823,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/02/25/shirley_butler_v._kari_gavek.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-28T21:25:55.483328Z","date_created":"2021-02-25T16:13:06.562634Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0c9e98dd54d56eb0a4d5267d57d498458cd9cc16","snippet":"February 25, 2021\n\n                                                          Supreme Court\n\n                                                          No. 2019-124-Appeal.\n                                                          (PC 18-5522)\n\n                Shirley Butler             :\n\n                      v.                   :\n\n              Kari Gavek et al.            :\n\n\n\n\n               NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision\n               before publication in the Rhode Isl","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4662823],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff, Shirley Butler, filed a partition action requesting that the Superior Court partition property she owned in joint tenancy with the defendants, Clarence Butler and Kari Gavek. While the petition was pending, the plaintiff passed away. The Superior Court thereafter granted a motion to dismiss in favor of the defendants. Subsequently, the Estate of Shirley Butler (the estate) filed an appeal. On appeal, the estate argued that, pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 34-15-12, the petition for partition survives the plaintiff's death despite the property being held in joint tenancy. Conversely, the defendants argued that the estate did not have standing to bring the appeal because the plaintiff's death extinguished the claim for partition and the estate was never a party to the underlying action. The Supreme Court held first that § 34-15-12 abrogates the common law right of survivorship in a joint tenancy when an action for partition is pending. Second, the Supreme Court held that the language of § 34-15-12 signals an intent by the Legislature to treat heirs and devisees, as represented by a decedent's estate, as parties in a pending action for partition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Superior Court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9452002/weatherly-v-second-northwest-coop-homes-assoc-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Weatherly v. Second Northwest Coop. Homes Assoc., Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9452002,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-12-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-CV-0403","docket_id":68087814,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:19:57.001858Z","date_created":"2023-12-14T15:02:18.048739Z","score":{"bm25":11.8559}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1475131,1479348,1503765,1939494,2315337],"download_url":"https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/Weatherly%20v.%20Northwest%20Coop%2022-CV-0403.pdf","id":9909827,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/12/14/weatherly_v._second_northwest_coop._homes_assoc._inc._1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:21:46.162513Z","date_created":"2023-12-14T15:02:18.050505Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a4d839857101d6117d170103db7801ea44496cbc","snippet":"Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic\nand Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of\nany formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go\nto press.\n\n             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                 No. 22-CV-0403\n\n                         JAMILA WEATHERLY, APPELLANT,\n\n                                         V.\n\n    SECOND NORTHWEST COOPERATIVE HOMES ASSOC","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9909827],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9452636/weatherly-v-second-northwest-coop-assoc-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Weatherly v. Second Northwest Coop. Assoc., Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9452636,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-12-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-CV-0403","docket_id":68087814,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:20:08.250673Z","date_created":"2023-12-15T18:02:36.066030Z","score":{"bm25":11.779108}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1475131,1479348,1503765,1939494,2315337],"download_url":"https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/Weatherly%20v.%20Northwest%20Coop%2022-CV-0403_0.pdf","id":9910461,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/12/14/weatherly_v._second_northwest_coop._assoc._inc._1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:09:40.245704Z","date_created":"2023-12-15T18:02:36.067764Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"13e2f2005c1026848502d9f6902e764af826b521","snippet":"Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic\nand Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of\nany formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go\nto press.\n\n             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                 No. 22-CV-0403\n\n                         JAMILA WEATHERLY, APPELLANT,\n\n                                         V.\n\n    SECOND NORTHWEST COOPERATIVE HOMES ASSOC","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9910461],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5860714/prestige-properties-development-co-v-montefiore-medical-center/","attorney":"","caseName":"Prestige Properties & Development Co. v. Montefiore Medical Center","caseNameFull":"Prestige Properties and Development Co., Inc. v. Montefiore Medical Center","citation":["36 A.D.3d 471","828 N.Y.S.2d 31"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5860714,"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":"2007-01-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62218610,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T07:04:29.041946Z","date_created":"2022-01-12T16:03:52.662382Z","score":{"bm25":11.649125}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2199761,5670989,5925996],"download_url":null,"id":5716991,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-07T14:41:31.547813Z","date_created":"2022-01-12T16:03:52.677374Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOrder, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered on or about August 28, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the second cause of action and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment to the extent of directing defendant insurer to provide a defense to plaintiff Prestige in an underlying action, unanimously modified, on the law, the first and sixth causes of act","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5716991],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10644592/11114-101-ave-corp-v-ramlogan/","attorney":"","caseName":"11114 101 Ave Corp. v. Ramlogan","caseNameFull":"11114 101 Ave Corp., against Mike Ramlogan, SIRI KRISHNA CAITANYA, MANDIR INC., & XYZ CORP.","citation":["2025 NY Slip Op 25171"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10644592,"court":"Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Queens County","court_citation_string":"Civ. Ct. NYC, Queens Cty.","court_id":"nycivctqueens","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. LT-300756-25/QU","docket_id":70965629,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-30T19:13:15.302856Z","date_created":"2025-07-30T19:12:54.122078Z","score":{"bm25":11.4466305}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3583106,3587583,5691125,5807951,5972817,6172811,6208331,6214105,9841029,9892180],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_25171.htm","id":11111179,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/07/28/11114_101_ave_corp._v._ramlogan.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T00:18:04.517757Z","date_created":"2025-07-30T19:12:54.130312Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ea8c2b26471d53ede6ed5d79ff2da4942cb21d12","snippet":"11114 101 Ave Corp. v Ramlogan (2025 NY Slip Op 25171)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\n11114 101 Ave Corp. v Ramlogan\n\n\n2025 NY Slip Op 25171\n\n\nDecided on July 28, 2025\n\n\nCivil Court Of The City Of New York, Queens County\n\n\nKagan, J.\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11111179],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10630441/vanguard-heights-dba-sandhurst-apartment-management-v-haitham-sourakli/","attorney":"","caseName":"Vanguard Heights d/b/a Sandhurst Apartment Management v. Haitham Sourakli","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10630441,"court":"Missouri Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Mo. Ct. App.","court_id":"moctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-05-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ED112107","docket_id":70760987,"judge":"Angela T. Quigless, J., and Cristian M. Stevens, J., concur.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-11T20:09:39.973230Z","date_created":"2025-07-11T15:04:01.786020Z","score":{"bm25":11.390377}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":7702,"cites":[2432700,2824301,5114015,5288283],"download_url":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220334","id":11097028,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/06/vanguard_heights_dba_sandhurst_apartment_management_v._haitham_sourakli.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T18:01:08.418353Z","date_created":"2025-07-11T15:04:01.804529Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9897e3267dc41a8d58940a0c867071b9146f0a20","snippet":"In the Missouri Court of Appeals\nCastern District\n\nDIVISION ONE\nVANGUARD HEIGHTS D/B/A ) No. ED112107\nSANDHURST APARTMENT )\nMANAGEMENT, )\n)\nRespondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of\n) St. Louis County\nvs. J 23SL-AC22618\n)\nHAITHAM SOURAKLI, ) Honorable Matthew H. Hearne\n)\nAppellant. ) Filed: May 6, 2025\n\nBefore James M. Dowd, P.J., Angela T. Quigless, J., and Cristian M. Stevens, J.\n\nOPINION\nVanguard Heights d/b/a Sandhurst Apartment Management sued its tenant, Haitham\nSourakli, for unlawful","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11097028],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4770870/cohen-v-postal-holdings-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":["199 Conn. App. 312"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4770870,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-07-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC42912","docket_id":17383268,"judge":"DiPentima; Moll; Devlin","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:21.740239Z","date_created":"2020-07-27T12:02:28.148776Z","score":{"bm25":11.297438}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1953705,1958616,2083499,2274629,3316956,3322168,3324050,4509747,7845416,7847490,7847793,7864267,8414970],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP199/199AP322.pdf","id":4551217,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/07/28/cohen_v._postal_holdings_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T21:31:33.605451Z","date_created":"2020-07-27T12:02:28.150908Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"68e35bdd897f94f94db7e28eedec0e1044d8458a","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action to recover damages for private nuisance, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury, where the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint; thereafter, the court, Krumeich, J., granted the defendant's motion for summary judg- ment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Affirmed. Beverley Rogers, submitted a brief for the appel- lants (plaintiffs). Matthew G. Conway and Raymond M. Gauvreau submitted a brief for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4551217],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiffs sought to recover damages from the defendant for private nuisance and negligence as a result of harm they allegedly suffered when the parties had been abutting property owners and the real prop- erty owned by the defendant allegedly had been in a dangerous condition that the defendant had failed to prevent or to abate. The defendant's predecessor lessors executed a ground lease of the property with U Co., a federal agency, and, subsequently, the defendant became the sole owner and sole lessor of the subject property. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. On the plaintiffs' appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the claim of negligence and determined that the defendant did not maintain control of the property and, thus, did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs: the ground lease, in clear and unambiguous terms, demised full control of the property to U Co. and divested any control of the property from the defendant; moreover, this court declined to consider whether the defendant exercised de facto control over the property, as the ground lease clearly and unambiguously provided that U Co. maintained control of the property. 2. The trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs' private nuisance claim; the ground lease demised full control of the property to U Co. and provided that U Co.'s responsibility for maintenance shall be fulfilled at such time and in such manner as U Co. considers necessary and provided the defendant no right to enter the property to perform maintenance or repairs or to demand that U Co. maintain the property and, thus, the defendant's inaction with regard to the condition of the property could not be characterized as causing a negligent or intentional interference with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property. Submitted on briefs April 22—officially released July 28, 2020"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10284005/gabriel-handy-v-kelly-fiske-kayla-currier/","attorney":"","caseName":"Gabriel Handy v. Kelly Fiske & Kayla Currier","caseNameFull":"","citation":["308 A.3d 544","2023 VT 46"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":10284005,"court":"Supreme Court of Vermont","court_citation_string":"Vt.","court_id":"vt","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-08-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-AP-353","docket_id":69414966,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:19:40.867806Z","date_created":"2024-11-26T16:52:22.411137Z","score":{"bm25":11.157946}},"neutralCite":"2023 VT 46","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1530091,2177237,4197459,4266685,4266690,4448000,6984169,8172292,9425685,9433887,10750469,10750548],"download_url":"https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/16209","id":10750593,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/08/03/gabriel_handy_v._kelly_fiske__kayla_currier.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T21:18:42.130264Z","date_created":"2024-11-26T16:52:22.413929Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3fa0e3cb05cec242677c3654e1d483478cc2d42b","snippet":"                                        ENTRY ORDER\n\n                                           2023 VT 46\n\n                           SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 22-AP-353\n\n                                       JUNE TERM, 2023\n\n Gabriel Handy                                     }    APPEALED FROM:\n                                                   }\n                                                   }\n    v.                                             }    Superior Court, Franklin Unit,\n           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10750593],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9392575/stoehr-v-saville/","attorney":"","caseName":"Stoehr v. Saville","caseNameFull":"","citation":["467 Ill. Dec. 221","218 N.E.3d 556","2023 IL App (4th) 220751"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9392575,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-04-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"4-22-0751","docket_id":67223146,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:31:32.207889Z","date_created":"2023-04-19T18:03:36.022760Z","score":{"bm25":10.779821}},"neutralCite":"2023 IL App (4th) 220751","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2131219,2765066,3414740,3418273,3419557,6981595],"download_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/e8de5b11-ee2a-415a-8df4-c89700d177a5/file","id":9388051,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/04/19/stoehr_v._saville.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:31:14.004552Z","date_created":"2023-04-19T18:03:36.043119Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6dbe57d3144b3bb36e7cc1e7423dd19343224dc3","snippet":"                                    2023 IL App (4th) 220751\n                                                                                   FILED\n                                          NO. 4-22-0751                           April 19, 2023\n                                                                                  Carla Bender\n                                 IN THE APPELLATE COURT                       4th District Appellate\n                                                         ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9388051],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4372478/nash-v-pulaski-cty-cir-ctdissent/","attorney":"","caseName":"Nash v. Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct.dissent","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2017 Ark. 73"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4372478,"court":"Supreme Court of Arkansas","court_citation_string":"Ark.","court_id":"ark","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-03-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CV-17-54","docket_id":4612684,"judge":"Josephine Linker Hart","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:26:27.161943Z","date_created":"2017-03-02T17:05:17.624117Z","score":{"bm25":10.757407}},"neutralCite":"2017 Ark. 73","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3753,"cites":[2355206],"download_url":"http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/weblink8/0/doc/361130/Electronic.aspx","id":4149731,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/03/02/nash_v._pulaski_cty._cir._ct.dissent.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:32:15.255230Z","date_created":"2017-03-02T17:05:17.635424Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"93f98a33f2829336bcb043b190a7ac35bae5e567","snippet":"                                     Cite as 2017 Ark. 73\n\n                SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS\n                                        No.   CV-17-54\n\nJIM R. NASH                                        Opinion Delivered   March 2, 2017\n\n                                APPELLANT\nV.\n\nPULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT\n                                                   DISSENTING OPINION ON DENIAL OF\n                                                   WRIT OF MANDAMUS.\n                              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4149731],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4873348/lenmar-realty-llc-v-sun-electric-works-inc-and-lake-vista-center-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"LENMAR REALTY, LLC v. SUN ELECTRIC WORKS, INC. and LAKE VISTA CENTER, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4873348,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-04-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-3605","docket_id":59819923,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:47:10.745212Z","date_created":"2021-04-14T15:03:41.303718Z","score":{"bm25":10.590043}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1112303,4802753,4876687],"download_url":"https://edca.4dca.org/DCADocs\\2019/3467/193467_DC08_04142021_100652_i.pdf","id":4677127,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/04/14/lenmar_realty_llc_v._sun_electric_works_inc._and_lake_vista_center_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T19:53:57.193190Z","date_created":"2021-04-14T15:03:41.305579Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7b73b6450d46ee2416bbcccc12337e52aaeb60ac","snippet":"        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA\n                              FOURTH DISTRICT\n\n                         LENMAR REALTY, LLC,\n                              Appellant,\n\n                                      v.\n\n            SUN ELECTRIC WORKS, INC., a Florida corporation,\n                 and RELIABLE POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,\n                              Appellees.\n\n               Nos. 4D19-3467, 4D19-3468 and 4D19-3605\n\n                              [April 14, 2021]\n\n   Consol","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4677127],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4678020/vignaraj-munsami-pillay-v-public-storage-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"VIGNARAJ MUNSAMI PILLAY v. PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4678020,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-11-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-0084","docket_id":16460459,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:53:29.564254Z","date_created":"2019-11-13T16:03:48.105654Z","score":{"bm25":10.567561}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1111194,1116786,1668770,1721941,1743615,1795463],"download_url":"https://edca.4dca.org/DCADocs/2019/0084/190084_1257_11132019_09220579_i.pdf","id":4455273,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/11/13/vignaraj_munsami_pillay_v._public_storage_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:04:30.870860Z","date_created":"2019-11-13T16:03:48.109075Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2d43bae4c5a0ec693dd4a55a1c7e345b554b0347","snippet":"       DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA\n                              FOURTH DISTRICT\n\n                      VIGNARAJ MUNSAMI PILLAY,\n                              Appellant,\n\n                                     v.\n\n                        PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.,\n                               Appellee.\n\n                               No. 4D19-84\n\n                           [November 13, 2019]\n\n   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,\nBroward County; ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4455273],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5992920/112-west-34th-street-associates-llc-v-112-1400-trade-properties-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"112 West 34th Street Associates, LLC v. 112-1400 Trade Properties LLC","caseNameFull":"112 West 34th Street Associates, LLC v. 112-1400 Trade Properties LLC","citation":["95 A.D.3d 529","944 N.Y.S.2d 68"],"citeCount":11,"cluster_id":5992920,"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":"2012-05-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62352786,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T07:40:16.173147Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T00:40:57.717256Z","score":{"bm25":10.514302}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1998410,2075760,2093939,2359345,2584373,2590579,2592620,5524564,5527088,5533407,5537630,5681195,5732884,5748596,5875086,5967762],"download_url":null,"id":5853841,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-07T18:08:03.211621Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T00:40:57.734579Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJudgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered November 7, 2011, inter alia, permanently enjoining defendant from terminating the lease or otherwise interfering with plaintiff’s possession of the leased premises based on the December 2, 2008 notice to cure, and declaring *530that plaintiff is not in default under or in breach of the lease, unanimously affirmed, with costs. ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5853841],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1166648/cutter-flying-service-inc-v-property-tax-department/","attorney":"Thomas F. Keleher, Keleher & McLeod, Albuquerque, for Cutter., Peter J. Adang and Jeffrey W. Loubet, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, Albuquerque, for Southwest Air Rangers., John G. Jasper, Jasper & Buell, Santa Fe, for Frontier Continental, Trans World, and Texas International Airlines, Inc., Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, John C. Cook and Arthur Encinias, Property Tax pellee. Dept., Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for ap-","caseName":"Cutter Flying Service, Inc. v. Property Tax Department","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of Valuation of Property for Property Taxation Purposes Of, CUTTER FLYING SERVICE, INC., Southwest Air Rangers, Inc., Frontier Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines, Inc., Trans World Airlines, Inc., and Texas International Airlines, Inc., Protestants-Appellants, v. PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT of the State of New Mexico, Valuation Authority-Appellee","citation":["572 P.2d 943","91 N.M. 215"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":1166648,"court":"New Mexico Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"N.M. Ct. App.","court_id":"nmctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1977-08-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2773","docket_id":569812,"judge":"Hernandez, Sutin, Lopez","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T02:11:21.954825Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T10:32:52.777794Z","score":{"bm25":10.51158}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9545343,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T21:13:05.285314Z","date_created":"2023-08-07T17:10:22.223262Z"},"ordering_key":3,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":" LOPEZ, Judge (specially concurring in part and dissenting in part). Taxpayers appeal the order of the director (hereinafter referred to as the director) of the Department of Property Tax (the department), denying a protest of assessment and levy of ad valorem taxes on their leasehold interests in the Albuquerque International Airport (the a","type":"in-part-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[96454,98045,102356,103251,104248,106798,263231,1126542,1139025,1202845,1221728,1260507,1260961,1285384,1296650,1307005,1315127,1336034,1336378,1338453,1346648,1354228,1361134,1413409,1417042,1451808,1815433,1944806,2609665,2619264,3488321,3571589,3571666,3571869,3573147],"download_url":null,"id":1166648,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T05:20:09.683278Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T04:34:40.158055Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"77ac4d013970bfac43b0c20d92335ffa8ee8bbdc","snippet":"\n572 P.2d 943 (1977)\n91 N.M. 215\nIn the Matter of the Consolidated Protests of Valuation of Property for Property Taxation Purposes of, CUTTER FLYING SERVICE, INC., Southwest Air Rangers, Inc., Frontier Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines, Inc., Trans World Airlines, Inc., and Texas International Airlines, Inc., Protestants-Appellants,\nv.\nPROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT of the State of New Mexico, Valuation Authority-Appellee.","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1166648,9545341,9545342,9545343],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}