{"count":288367,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yOS4zMTU2OCZzPTQ4MDQ1NzImdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wOS0yNyZwPTI%3D&q=DISPOSITION+OF+PROCEEDS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6236908/disposition-of-proceeds-from-the-sale-of-government-buildings-acquired-with/","attorney":"","caseName":"Disposition of Proceeds from the Sale of Government Buildings Acquired with Social Security Trust Funds","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6236908,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-12-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62601211,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:08.941940Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:11:58.752308Z","score":{"bm25":171.32097}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109067,110102,110365,112716,112852,175346,175595,186678,581355,8409727,9427261,9430034,9481445,9499471],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/2010-12-17-bldgs-ssa-trust-funds/download","id":6103790,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2010/12/17/disposition_of_proceeds_from_the_sale_of_government_buildings_acquired_with.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T05:16:35.748333Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:11:58.754455Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ea49680a18eabba5e2db62020f78a501b2db92fa","snippet":"      Disposition of Proceeds from the Sale of Government\n      Buildings Acquired with Social Security Trust Funds\nThe General Services Administration is authorized, under section 412 of the Consolidated\n  Appropriations Act of 2005, to convey Social Security Administration buildings that\n  were acquired with money derived from the Social Security Trust Funds and to retain\n  the net proceeds in the Federal Buildings Fund.\n\n                                                                     Dec","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6103790],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The General Services Administration is authorized, under section 412 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, to convey Social Security Administration buildings that were acquired with money derived from the Social Security Trust Funds and to retain the net proceeds in the Federal Buildings Fund."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4342074/disposition-of-proceeds-from-the-sale-of-real-property-acquired-with-money/","attorney":"","caseName":"Disposition of Proceeds From the Sale of Real Property Acquired With Money From the Social Security Trust Funds","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4342074,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-12-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":4574857,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:23:43.738504Z","date_created":"2017-01-27T22:39:06.075565Z","score":{"bm25":159.79236}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109067,110102,110365,112716,112852,175346,175595,186678,581355,8409727,9427261,9430034,9481445,9499471],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2010/12/31/ssa-opinion_0.pdf","id":4119335,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2010/12/17/disposition_of_proceeds_from_the_sale_of_real_property_acquired_with_money.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:11:46.970218Z","date_created":"2017-01-27T22:39:06.081375Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"34be880d72a4a8f9c3eb9df894bb4fda618dc214","snippet":"              DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF REAL \n\n             PROPERTY ACQUIRED WITH MONEY FROM THE SOCIAL \n\n                           SECURITY TRUST FUNDS \n\n        The General Services Administration is authorized, under section 412 of the Consolidated\nAppropriations Act of 2005, to convey Social Security Administration buildings that were acquired with\nmoney derived from the Social Security Trust Funds and to retain the net proceeds in the Federal\nBuildings Fund.\n\n              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4119335],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10655641/state-of-texas-v-xerox-corporation-settlement-proceeds/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Texas v. Xerox Corporation Settlement Proceeds","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10655641,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [15th Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp15","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-08-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"15-25-00034-CV","docket_id":69820133,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:27:47.628437Z","date_created":"2025-08-18T08:20:03.748328Z","score":{"bm25":50.15331}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[174994,661450,665870,712194,894851,1196972,1525350,1560763,1777918,1788609,2362680,2395011,2433105,2460539,2677192,2967039,3125966,3950928,4124909,4287542,4287548,4384110,4394356,4450749,4699593,5072252,5282904,5284058,7864619,8409147,9349443,9435113,9501012,9502913,9649317,9680994,9767010,9810985],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaID=79fa424c-602e-484e-b903-5182cab7323a","id":11122228,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/08/11/state_of_texas_v._xerox_corporation_settlement_proceeds.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:27:47.613474Z","date_created":"2025-08-18T08:20:03.750477Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"adc3633c7901fd5e170391402e72831125ccaa12","snippet":"                                                                    ACCEPTED\n                                                                15-25-00034-CV\n                                                  FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS\n                                                                AUSTIN, TEXAS\n                                                              8/11/2025 4:55 PM\n                         No. 15-25-00034-CV              CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE\n                               ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11122228],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10637607/state-of-texas-v-xerox-corporation-settlement-proceeds/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Texas v. Xerox Corporation Settlement Proceeds","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10637607,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [15th Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp15","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"15-25-00034-CV","docket_id":69820133,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:26:25.986206Z","date_created":"2025-07-21T07:19:13.260410Z","score":{"bm25":48.92189}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[8262,31539,63163,591195,781574,788246,895243,895316,1226703,1491428,1527473,1616022,1635395,1723161,1859792,2332908,2343481,2395011,2716173,2770752,2967039,2968781,3185259,3219321,3950928,4124909,4287542,4287548,4384110,4394356,5110270,5282904,5284058,5285770,6933358,6983366,6985167,7864619,8409147,8412025,9435113,9501012,9512825,9578925,9644564,9655052,9655544,9680994,9760796,9761607,9767010,9810985],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaID=87971373-ce2e-4df9-8053-030460df3feb","id":11104194,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/10/state_of_texas_v._xerox_corporation_settlement_proceeds.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:26:25.986359Z","date_created":"2025-07-21T07:19:13.262138Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0f927540b15a0958be97adf1dbcb3a97ea105fa4","snippet":"                                                                           ACCEPTED\n                                                                       15-25-00034-CV\n                                                         FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS\n                                                                       AUSTIN, TEXAS\n                                                                     7/10/2025 8:19 AM\n                            No. 15-25-00034-CV                  CHRISTOPHE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11104194],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10691070/state-of-texas-v-xerox-corporation-settlement-proceeds/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Texas v. Xerox Corporation Settlement Proceeds","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10691070,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [15th Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp15","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-10-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"15-25-00034-CV","docket_id":69820133,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:29:23.255862Z","date_created":"2025-10-06T08:17:03.377673Z","score":{"bm25":48.557575}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[8262,63163,185878,712194,734103,781574,894974,1196972,1226703,1487368,1567979,2127131,2343481,2395011,2433105,2967039,3008506,4096473,4124909,4152314,4287542,4287548,4384110,4450749,4538681,4699593,5072252,5077770,6933358,6983366,6985167,7864619,8409147,8410880,9435113,9501012,9512825,9674970,9767010,9815672],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaID=156966ef-2ce5-480e-a982-757583a07cdc","id":11157658,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/10/02/state_of_texas_v._xerox_corporation_settlement_proceeds.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:29:23.207886Z","date_created":"2025-10-06T08:17:03.380835Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f24308b1dbb828b727ebcea9107ded6134a24d7f","snippet":"                                                                           ACCEPTED\n                                                                       15-25-00034-CV\n                                                         FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS\n                                                                       AUSTIN, TEXAS\n                                                                     10/2/2025 2:56 PM\n                            No. 15-25-00034-CV                  CHRISTOPHE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11157658],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4836552/re-amendment-to-disposition-of-surplus-property/","attorney":"","caseName":"RE AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 OK 95"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4836552,"court":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla.","court_id":"okla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-11-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":18721805,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-11T16:28:08.985773Z","date_created":"2020-12-07T23:13:06.947926Z","score":{"bm25":46.18113}},"neutralCite":"2020 OK 95","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=487365","id":4635576,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2020/11/23/re_amendment_to_disposition_of_surplus_property_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T13:13:51.367357Z","date_created":"2020-11-23T23:07:01.929689Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1361a29866263ed65153b1a66d3e9d5a04a69bd7","snippet":"\n\t\tOSCN Found Document:RE AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n  \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tRE AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY2020 OK 95Decided: 11/23/2020THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA\nCite as: 2020 OK 95, __ P.3d __\n\n\t\t\t\t\nRE: Amendment to Disposition of Surplus Property, Rules for Management of the Court Fund, 20 O.S., ","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[4635527],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=487365","id":4640331,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2020/11/23/re_amendment_to_disposition_of_surplus_property_7.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-11T16:28:08.987860Z","date_created":"2020-12-07T23:13:06.951232Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8db4fe19d9317fdfdfe80fce9464f9c1a3c1dfab","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tRE AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4635576,4640331],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9492352/pure-proceeds-llc-v-rjs-consultants-inc-etc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Pure Proceeds, LLC v. RJS Consultants, Inc., etc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9492352,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-04-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2023-0544","docket_id":68423093,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:29:30.767390Z","date_created":"2024-04-10T15:03:09.369599Z","score":{"bm25":42.32877}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://3dca.flcourts.gov/pre_opinion_content_download/2364365","id":9958965,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/04/10/pure_proceeds_llc_v._rjs_consultants_inc._etc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T04:59:39.772185Z","date_created":"2024-04-10T15:03:09.371311Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"857272a0451172a8db2e02d115f39d06306e7e70","snippet":"      Third District Court of Appeal\n                               State of Florida\n\n                         Opinion filed April 10, 2024.\n       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.\n                             ________________\n\n                             No. 3D23-0544\n                       Lower Tribunal No. 20-13122\n                          ________________\n\n                         Pure Proceeds, LLC,\n                                  Appellant,\n\n          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9958965],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4687678/re-disposition-of-surplus-property-rules-for-management-of-court-fund/","attorney":"","caseName":"RE DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY RULES FOR MANAGEMENT OF COURT FUND","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2019 OK 82"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4687678,"court":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla.","court_id":"okla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-12-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":16596660,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-23T22:02:01.921280Z","date_created":"2019-12-17T18:10:03.244024Z","score":{"bm25":39.547913}},"neutralCite":"2019 OK 82","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=486339","id":4464722,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2019/12/16/re_disposition_of_surplus_property_rules_for_management_of_court_fund.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T10:25:15.470872Z","date_created":"2019-12-16T22:09:33.836900Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"af4c254ed1145060ab24bc47eb581f4cb46d5062","snippet":"\n\t\tOSCN Found Document:RE DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY RULES FOR MANAGEMENT OF COURT FUND\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n  \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tRE DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY RULES FOR MANAGEMENT OF COURT FUND2019 OK 82Decided: 12/16/2019THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA\nCite as: 2019 OK 82, __ P.3d __\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\nNOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICA","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[4464722],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=486339","id":4464931,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2019/12/16/re_disposition_of_surplus_property_rules_for_management_of_court_fund_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T14:55:06.752483Z","date_created":"2019-12-17T18:10:03.250663Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9fd2621afa92a2176f1fc3ed58e68db260fe34c9","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tRE DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY RULES FOR MANAGEMENT OF COURT FUND\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4464931,4464722],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5326330/in-re-excess-proceeds/","attorney":"Jere Reneer and Ron W. Haycock Jr., Spanish Fork, for Appellant., Seott T. Poston, Park City, for Appellee.","caseName":"In Re Excess Proceeds","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the EXCESS PROCEEDS FROM THE FORECLOSURE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1559 S HOBBLE CREEK HAVEN ROAD SPRINGVILLE, UT 84663. Douglas D. Keyser, and v. Karyn D. Keyser, and","citation":["250 P.3d 1036","2011 UT App 93","678 Utah Adv. Rep. 41","2011 Utah App. LEXIS 90"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5326330,"court":"Court of Appeals of Utah","court_citation_string":"Utah Ct. App.","court_id":"utahctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-03-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 20100956-CA","docket_id":61667508,"judge":"Davis, Roth, Voros","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:42:53.625469Z","date_created":"2022-01-02T02:20:42.517567Z","score":{"bm25":39.139904}},"neutralCite":"2011 UT App 93","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5156145,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"utah/court_opinions/documents/65b41d5574e0e800.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:07:19.185076Z","date_created":"2022-01-02T02:20:42.531009Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"","snippet":" DECISION\n¶ 1 Douglas D. Keyser seeks to appeal the trial court's order allocating excess proceeds from the foreclosure of the former marital home. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a final order for purposes of appeal.\n ¶ 2 After a hearing on October 28, 2010, the trial court announced its ruling and ordered Karyn D. Keyser's counsel to prepare an order consistent with the ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[8400,8405,8408],"panel_names":["James Z. Davis","Stephen Roth","Frederic J. Voros Jr."],"posture":"Fourth District, Provo Department, 100401367, The Honorable Darold J. McDade.","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5156145],"source":"ZU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5447134/in-re-gambling-devices-proceeds/","attorney":"Oscar A. Vela, Jr., Law Offices of Oscar A. Vela, Jr., P.C., Nathan H. Chu, Laredo, TX, for Appellant., David L. Reuthinger, Jr., Webb County District Attorney’s Office, Laredo, TX, for Appellee.","caseName":"In re Gambling Devices & Proceeds","caseNameFull":"IN RE GAMBLING DEVICES AND PROCEEDS","citation":["496 S.W.3d 159","2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6025","2016 WL 3192795"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":5447134,"court":"Court of Appeals of Texas","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.","court_id":"texapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-06-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 04-15-00357-CR","docket_id":61797258,"judge":"Angelini, Barnard, Chapa","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T05:15:13.368365Z","date_created":"2022-01-07T07:35:14.444187Z","score":{"bm25":38.05876}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1516648,2189922,2467040,9771595],"download_url":null,"id":5285737,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T01:00:42.606884Z","date_created":"2022-01-07T07:35:14.455766Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nOpinion by:\nKaren Angelini, Justice\nOn June 10, 2015, pursuant to article 18.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court in Trial Court No. 2015CRP00775 D3 ordered that because no good cause supported a search warrant, the State was required to return items to the owners. The State appealed. Because we have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an order issued pursua","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5285737],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6527213/in-re-sheriffs-excess-proceeds-litigation/","attorney":"Deborah R. Gross and Robert H. Bembry, III, for plaintiffs., Andrew J. Belli, Robert D. Aversa and Benjamin J. Hinerfeld, for defendants.","caseName":"In re Sheriff's Excess Proceeds Litigation","caseNameFull":"In re Sheriff's Excess Proceeds Litigation","citation":["29 Pa. D. & C.5th 54","2013 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 80"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6527213,"court":"Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County","court_citation_string":"","court_id":"pactcomplphilad","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-03-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 00387","docket_id":63457062,"judge":"Glazer","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:03:09.399786Z","date_created":"2022-06-25T00:31:16.036753Z","score":{"bm25":37.820473}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6400897,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T06:49:59.522670Z","date_created":"2022-06-25T00:31:16.044360Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nGLAZER, J.,\nNamed plaintiffs Joseph O’Hara and his company Finn Land Corp. purport to represent two classes of persons aggrieved by the Sheriffs Office of Philadelphia County’s mishandling of excess proceeds from the sale of foreclosed properties. Plaintiffs define those two classes as follows:\n*56a. Each owner of real property within the ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6400897],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3005007/in-re-gambling-devices-and-proceeds/","attorney":"","caseName":"in Re Gambling Devices and Proceeds","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":3005007,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-San Antonio","court_id":"txctapp4","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-09-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"04-15-00357-CR","docket_id":2862255,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T10:17:11.834238Z","date_created":"2015-09-28T07:36:35.173775Z","score":{"bm25":36.7525}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=5182&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa04%5cOrder","id":3005007,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/09/25/in_re_gambling_devices_and_proceeds.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T10:17:11.825457Z","date_created":"2015-09-28T07:34:33.046667Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d87d0e6a11953540e169adf42ade4c124ecacdd0","snippet":"                            Fourth Court of Appeals\n                                   San Antonio, Texas\n                                       September 25, 2015\n\n                                      No. 04-15-00357-CR\n\n                       In re GAMBLING DEVICES AND PROCEEDS,\n                                           Appellant\n                  From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas\n                  Trial Court No. 2015CVK001558 D3 & 2015CRP000775 D3\n                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3005007],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1790443/in-re-the-disposition-of-molly/","attorney":"Thomas F. Pursell, Lindquist & Ven-num, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant William Frederick Klumpp, Jr., Jerome P. Filia, Peterson, Fram & Bergman, St. Paul, MN, for respondent City of Arden Hills.","caseName":"In Re the Disposition of Molly","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Disposition of MOLLY, a German Shorthaired Pointer Owned by William Frederick Klumpp, Jr.","citation":["712 N.W.2d 567","2006 Minn. App. LEXIS 61","2006 WL 1147960"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":1790443,"court":"Court of Appeals of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn. Ct. App.","court_id":"minnctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2006-05-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A05-1130","docket_id":1716020,"judge":"Minge, Randall, Collins","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T06:12:34.394201Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T18:55:02.032744Z","score":{"bm25":35.797295}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9683730,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T21:53:47.155266Z","date_created":"2023-08-24T13:35:57.479547Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMINGE, Judge\n(dissenting).\nI respectfully dissent. With respect to whether Molly killed Scooter, I agree the record is sparse. However, it indicates that Linda Mertensotto is a nurse and that she and her husband concluded that Scooter was so badly injured that the most humane treatment was euthanization. The veterinarian noted that Scooter was almost comatose and offered what could be viewed as heroic measures","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":7635,"cites":[95368,109382,1235761,1249694,1280811,1627063,1793567,1935949,2023166],"download_url":null,"id":1790443,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T12:16:51.604640Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T07:27:10.395177Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"beebb9cc1fdd02bb9da317f8f16f31ffdf5e2f8d","snippet":"\n712 N.W.2d 567 (2006)\nIn the Matter of the Disposition of MOLLY, a German Shorthaired Pointer Owned by William Frederick Klumpp, Jr.\nNo. A05-1130.\nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota.\nMay 2, 2006.\n*568 Thomas F. Pursell, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant William Frederick Klumpp, Jr.\nJerome P. Filla, Peter","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9683729,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T21:53:47.160833Z","date_created":"2023-08-24T13:35:57.470324Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nCOLLINS, Judge.*\nAppellant challenges the district court’s order designating his dog a “dangerous dog” under Minn.Stat. § 347.50, subd. 2(2) (2004). Because we conclude that (1) respondent lacked legal authority to bring an action under the statute and (2) it cannot be concluded from the record that appellant’s dog “killed” the other dog within the plain meaning of the","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1790443,9683729,9683730],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5013621/in-re-discontinuance-disposition-of-pk-smith-motors-inc/","attorney":"Stamey & Miller, L.L.C. by J. Mark Miller, T. Taylor Townsend, for Appellant Bradley Kyle Smith, Independent Executor for the Succession of Perry Joe Smith., Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P., by Claude R. Reynaud, Jr., Jeanne C. Co-meaux, Carroll Devillier, Jr., Baton Rouge, LA, for Appellee P.K. Smith Motors, Inc., Corkern,'Crews & Guillet, L.L.C. by Ronald E. Corkern, Jr., Natchitoches, LA, for Appellee Kenneth Michael Smith. -","caseName":"In re Discontinuance & Disposition of P.K. Smith Motors, Inc.","caseNameFull":"In re Discontinuance and Disposition of P.K. SMITH MOTORS, INC.","citation":["188 So. 3d 324","2016 La. App. LEXIS 475","2016 WL 900615"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5013621,"court":"Louisiana Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"La. Ct. App.","court_id":"lactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-03-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 50,357-CA","docket_id":60254307,"judge":"Calloway, Caraway, Drew, Hoc, Lolley, Williams","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-17T19:31:33.328817Z","date_created":"2021-08-22T13:22:16.966734Z","score":{"bm25":34.838936}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4826293,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:02:03.347878Z","date_created":"2021-08-22T13:22:16.983876Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nCALLOWAY, J., Ad Hoc.\n11 This matter involves a.family dispute between a nephew, as executor of his late father’s estate, and an uncle concerning a family-owned corporation. Bradley Kyle Smith (“Bradley”), independent executor for the Succession of Perry Joe Smith (“the éstate”), is appealing a judgment that denied his petition for the discontinuance and disposition of P.K. Smith Motors, Inc. (“P.K. Smith” or “the corporation”","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4826293],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1663041/in-re-seizure-of-gambling-proceeds-and-devices/","attorney":"William T. Green, III, Houston, TX, for appellants., Alan Curry, April Adams Silva, Houston, TX, for appellees.","caseName":"In Re Seizure of Gambling Proceeds and Devices","caseNameFull":"In Re Seizure of Gambling Proceeds and Devices.","citation":["261 S.W.3d 439","2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6300","2008 WL 3833797"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":1663041,"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":"2008-08-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14-06-01092-CV","docket_id":1251738,"judge":"Wanda McKee Fowler","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T08:01:56.589901Z","date_created":"2015-10-16T07:38:07.745539Z","score":{"bm25":33.556683}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1376277,1527473,1568949,1749669,1768046,2336160,2343578,2408183,2458036,3931611,4901129,9512917,9632819,9643603,9668752,9677919,9768394,9774949],"download_url":null,"id":1663041,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"texas/court_opinions/documents/f2d66d660b28d2b1.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T08:01:56.582467Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T07:03:39.061799Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"749123b813ec9d4076a10e73435a48df7f862c75","snippet":"Case Number: 14-06-01092-CV 02/05/2009 Case stored in record room 01/27/2009 Notice sent to Court of Appeals 12/05/2008 Petition for Review disposed proceeding denied 11/04/2008 Case forwarded to Court 10/13/2008 Supplemental appendix 10/07/2008 Phone call from Clerk's Office 10/03/2008 Petition for Review filed 10/03/2008 Appendix Filed\n OPINION\nIn this case, appellants Abelardo Jasso (\"Jasso\") and Emerald Coast Exchange (\"Emerald Coast\") ask us to de","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[8325],"panel_names":["Kem Thompson Frost"],"posture":"Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 7, Harris County, Pamela L. S. Derbyshire, J. Page 440","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1663041],"source":"ZLU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8327600/in-re-disposition-of-cases-in-general-sessions-in-the-thirteenth-judicial/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Disposition of Cases in General Sessions in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit","caseNameFull":"Re DISPOSITION OF CASES IN GENERAL SESSIONS IN the THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT","citation":["406 S.C. 463","752 S.E.2d 544","2013 WL 6712639","2013 S.C. LEXIS 340"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8327600,"court":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C.","court_id":"sc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-12-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":65505983,"judge":"Toal","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:26:01.702230Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T11:01:31.303819Z","score":{"bm25":32.11096}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8295281,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:03:24.710958Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T11:01:31.313684Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER\nJEAN H. TOAL, Chief Justice.\nThe Court directs that in each General Sessions case arising before the various Magistrates and Municipal Courts of the county, the following procedure is to be followed:\n*464I. Bond Hearing\na. Within 72 hours, after being served with a warr","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8295281],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2934168/in-re-seizure-of-gambling-proceeds-and-devices/","attorney":"","caseName":"in Re Seizure of Gambling Proceeds and Devices","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2934168,"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":"2008-08-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14-06-01092-CV","docket_id":2791257,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T09:57:55.698765Z","date_created":"2015-09-15T03:46:52.509438Z","score":{"bm25":31.069424}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[894744,1376277,1450285,1508583,1527473,1568949,1682293,1749669,1754444,1768046,2336160,2343578,2410314,2447717,2458036,3931611],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=1550&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa14%5cOpinion","id":2934168,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2008/08/19/in_re_seizure_of_gambling_proceeds_and_devices.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T09:57:55.698528Z","date_created":"2015-09-15T03:16:56.730672Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1331f00d72345014427c044e1a1022c336f3b9c1","snippet":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAffirmed and Opinion filed August 19, 2008\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAffirmed and Opinion filed August 19, 2008.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nIn The\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nFourteenth Court of\r\nAppeals\r\n\r\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2934168],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8338759/jubber-v-hiawatha-coal-proceeds-in-re-cw-mining-co/","attorney":"Brent D. Wride, Ray Quinney & Nebeker, Peter W. Billings, Fabian & Clendenin, Salt Lake City, UT, for Appellants., Peter W. Guyon, Salt Lake City, UT, for Appellees.","caseName":"Jubber v. Hiawatha Coal Proceeds (In re C.W. Mining Co.)","caseNameFull":"In re C.W. MINING COMPANY, Debtor. Gary E. Jubber, Chapter 11 Trustee, and Aquila, Inc. v. re: Hiawatha Coal Proceeds","citation":["539 B.R. 379","2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134902"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8338759,"court":"District Court, D. Utah","court_citation_string":"D. Utah","court_id":"utd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-10-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Bankruptcy No. 08-20105; No. 2:14-CV-500-TC; Adversary No. 11-08001","docket_id":65517180,"judge":"Cambell","lexisCite":"2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134902","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:30:53.837179Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T13:04:55.498219Z","score":{"bm25":30.038374}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8307090,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T16:04:15.844752Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T13:04:55.504872Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON BANKRUPTCY APPEAL\nTENA CAMBELL, District Judge.\nThis appeal arises from an adversary proceeding filed in bankruptcy court in connection with the involuntary bankruptcy of C.W. Mining Company, the former operator of the Bear Canyon coal mine in Utah. Chapter 11 Trustee Gary E. Jubber and creditor Aquila, Inc. (collectively, the Trustee) appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s decisio","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8307090],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4867820/randy-anderson-v-state-of-mississippi/","attorney":"","caseName":"Randy Anderson v. State of Mississippi","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4867820,"court":"Mississippi Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Miss.","court_id":"miss","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-03-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2018-M-00154","docket_id":59764955,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:45:47.250161Z","date_created":"2021-03-25T19:08:40.377856Z","score":{"bm25":29.63506}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112201,463779,1087765],"download_url":"https://courts.ms.gov/appellatecourts/docket/sendPDF.php?f=700_536008.pdf&c=87756&a=N&s=2","id":4671599,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/03/25/randy_anderson_v._state_of_mississippi.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T19:51:28.821181Z","date_created":"2021-03-25T19:08:40.380810Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8908766e434f7726d11e42705553c05da7eaeb94","snippet":"Electronic Document         Mar 19 2021 10:20:42         2018-M-00154           Pages: 5\n\n\n\n\n           Serial: 236089\n                               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI\n\n                                              No. 2018-M-00154\n\n           RANDY ANDERSON                                                                   Petitioner\n\n            v.\n\n           STATE OF MISSISSIPPI                                                            Respondent\n\n\n                         ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4671599],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Randy Anderson v. State of Mississippi Montgomery Circuit Court LC Case : 7351 Ruling Judge: C. Morgan, III Disposition: The Application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court filed by Randy Anderson is denied. To Deny and Issue Sanctions Warning: Randolph, C.J., Coleman, Maxwell, Beam, Chamberlin, Ishee and Griffis, JJ. To Deny: Kitchens and King, P.JJ. King, P.J., Objects to the Order in Part with Separate Written Statement Joined by Kitchens, P.J. Order entered 3/19/21."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4804572/diaz-v-commissioner-of-correction/","attorney":"","caseName":"Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction","caseNameFull":"","citation":["201 Conn. App. 254"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4804572,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-11-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC39651","docket_id":18616191,"judge":"Elgo; DiPentima; Bear","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:48:03.042096Z","date_created":"2020-11-09T13:02:08.923858Z","score":{"bm25":29.31568}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1487873,1547580,2335292,2356011,4325373,4522692,7840584,7859744,9252407,9424363,9429592,9430227],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP201/201AP19.pdf","id":4584919,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/11/10/diaz_v._commissioner_of_correction.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T22:19:19.440145Z","date_created":"2020-11-09T13:02:08.925379Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ed52009e21914e67d15790a2ff2f075cc0734f95","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":"Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the court, Oliver, J.; judgment denying the petition, from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court, DiPen- tima, C. J., and Elgo and Bear, Js., which affirmed the habeas court's judgment, and the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment of this court and remanded the case to this court for further proceed- ings. Affirmed. Deren Manasevit, assigned counsel, for the appel- lant (petitioner). Melissa Patterson, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Matthew C. Gedansky, state's attorney, and David M. Carlucci, assistant state's attor- ney, for the appellee (respondent).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4584919],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The petitioner, who had been convicted, on a guilty plea, of the crime of home invasion, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance. The habeas court rendered judgment denying the habeas petition, from which the peti- tioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. On appeal, he claimed that the habeas court incorrectly concluded that his trial counsel's failure to file a motion to dismiss the home invasion charge, to which the petitioner had pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford (400 U.S. 25), did not constitute ineffective assistance. Held that the petitioner could not prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as he failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged deficient performance; there was no evidence in the record showing that, but for his trial counsel's alleged deficient performance, the petitioner would have insisted on going to trial, and there was nothing to indicate that the dismissal of the home invasion charge would have resulted in any meaningful reduction in the petition- er's exposure to a lengthy period of incarceration. Submitted for disposition October 15—officially released November 10, 2020"}]}