{"count":32956,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yNS45MjI0Njgmcz0zMTcxMDIxJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDktMzAmcD0y&q=DISPOSITION+OF+PROPERTY+AS+REALIZATION+EVENT&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10628779/in-the-matter-of-disbursement-of-real-property-assets-to-heir-andor-the/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of Disbursement of Real Property Assets to Heir and/or The Sale of Real Property: Wilhelmina Montgomery v. Zelpha Montgomery Whatley","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10628779,"court":"Court of Appeals of Mississippi","court_citation_string":"Miss. Ct. App.","court_id":"missctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-02-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2022-CP-00992-COA","docket_id":70759122,"judge":"Emfinger, John H., J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-11T20:07:00.130948Z","date_created":"2025-07-11T14:41:24.924011Z","score":{"bm25":35.032543}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":16241,"cites":[1094077,1153162,1729080,1848416,1907823,4112884,4923019,7993750,9661006,9804109],"download_url":"https://courts.ms.gov/images/Opinions/CO182141.pdf","id":11095366,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/02/25/in_the_matter_of_disbursement_of_real_property_assets_to_heir_andor_the.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:16:11.756620Z","date_created":"2025-07-11T14:41:24.935849Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b80d8c70e5875c4bbf8edb061e9ae6aa2b8bed9c","snippet":"         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI\n\n                                NO. 2022-CP-00992-COA\n\nIN THE MATTER OF DISBURSEMENT OF                                          APPELLANT\nREAL PROPERTY ASSETS TO HEIR AND/OR\nTHE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY:\nWILHELMINA MONTGOMERY\n\nv.\n\nZELPHA MONTGOMERY WHATLEY,                                                  APPELLEE\nEXECUTRIX\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:                          09/07/2022\nTRIAL JUDGE:                               HON. ROBERT GEOR","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11095366],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4451516/dell-inc-v-magnetar-global-event-driven-master-fund-ltd/","attorney":"Gregory P. Williams, Esquire (argued), John D. Hendershot, Esquire, Susan M. Hannigan, Esquire, and Andrew J. Peach, Esquire, Richards, Layton <& Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: John L. Latham, Esquire, and Susan E. Hurd, Esquire, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Gidon M. Caine, Esquire, Alston & Bird LLP, East Palo Alto, California; and Charles W. Cox, Esquire, Alston & Bird LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Dell Inc., Stuart M. Grant, Esquire (argued), Michael J. Barry, Esquire, Christine M. Mackintosh, Esquire, and Rebecca A. Mu-sarra, Esquire, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for Appel-lees/Cross-Appellants Morgan Stanley Defined Contribution Master Trust; AAM-AF, LP; CSS, LLC; Merlin Partners, LP; William L. Martin; Terence Lally; Arthur H. Burnet; Darshanand Khusial; Donna H. Lindsey; Douglas J. Joseph Roth .Contributory IRA; Douglas J. Joseph & Thuy Joseph, Joint Tenants; Geoffrey Stern; James C. Aramayo; Thomas Ruegg; and Rene A. Baker., Samuel T. Hirzel, II, Esquire (argued), and Melissa N. Donimirski, Esquire, Hey-man Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, Delaware of Counsel:. Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esquire, and Steven M. Hecht, Esquire, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees/Cross-Ap-pellants - Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd; Magnetar Capital Master Fund Ltd; Global Continuum Fund Ltd; ■ Spectrum Opportunities Master Fund Ltd; -Blackwell Partners LLC; and Wakefield Partners LP.","caseName":"Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd.","caseNameFull":"DELL, INC., Respondent-Below, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. MAGNETAR GLOBAL EVENT DRIVEN MASTER FUND LTD; Magnetar Capital Master Fund Ltd; Global Continuum Fund, Ltd; Spectrum Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.; Morgan Stanley Defined Contribution Master Trust; Blackwell Partners LLC; Aamaf, LP; Wakefield Partners, LP; CSS, LLC; Merlin Partners, LP; William L. Martin; Terence Lally; Arthur H. Burnet; Darshanand Khusial; Donna H. Lindsey; Douglas J. Joseph Roth Contributory Ira; Douglas J. Joseph & Thuy Joseph, Joint Tenants; Geoffrey Stern; James C. Aramayo; Thomas Ruegg; Cavan Partners LP; And Rene A. Baker, Petitioners-Below, Appellees/Cross-Appellants","citation":["177 A.3d 1"],"citeCount":86,"cluster_id":4451516,"court":"Supreme Court of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del.","court_id":"del","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-12-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"565, 2016","docket_id":6241640,"judge":"Strine, Valihura, Vaughn, Traynor, Legrow","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:48:55.393277Z","date_created":"2017-12-14T16:06:32.500028Z","score":{"bm25":32.55019}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":4012,"cites":[1482039,1487730,1491531,1497598,1497621,1502173,1536001,1916444,1917620,1954871,1985132,2177313,2209471,2310527,2400812,2404159,2423246],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=266610","id":4228769,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/12/14/dell_inc._v._magnetar_global_event_driven_master_fund_ltd.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:26:56.635698Z","date_created":"2017-12-14T16:06:32.513384Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"97b97b7e5c064358bdd4f9980f1df20675a3996f","snippet":"\n\n\n  VALIHURA, Justice:\n \n\n  The petitioners left standing in this long-running appraisal saga are former stockholders of Dell Inc. (“Dell” .or the “Company”) who validly exercised their appraisal rights instead of voting for a buyout led by the Company’s founder and CEO, Michael Dell, and affiliates of a private equity firm, Silver Lake Partners (“Silver Lake”). In perf","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4228769],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/768043/self-realization-fellowship-church-v-ananda-church-of-self-realization/","attorney":"","caseName":"Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church Of Self-Realization","caseNameFull":"Self-Realization Fellowship Church, a California Corporation,plaintiff-Appellant v. Ananda Church of Selfrealization, a California Corporation Fellowship of Inner Communion, a California Corporation James Walters, AKA Sri Kriyananda","citation":["206 F.3d 1322"],"citeCount":21,"cluster_id":768043,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","court_citation_string":"9th Cir.","court_id":"ca9","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2000-03-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"97-17407","docket_id":449323,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T19:15:19.040020Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T23:44:28.364263Z","score":{"bm25":32.311207}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[111719,112420,269517,275414,330038,330360,376892,420913,516047,537684,695159,699269,718689,719656,741159,758395,1609294,1804005,2132707],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/206/206.F3d.1322.97-17407.html","id":768043,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T13:10:43.211248Z","date_created":"2012-04-18T08:50:23Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a8f2ddc933242bd3f1b627c633d629e4b463fcce","snippet":"206 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 2000)\n    SELF-REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP CHURCH, a California corporation,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.ANANDA CHURCH OF SELFREALIZATION, a California corporation; FELLOWSHIP OF INNER COMMUNION, a California corporation; JAMES WALTERS, aka Sri Kriyananda, Defendants-Appellees.\n    No. 97-17407\n    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n    Argued and Submi","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[768043],"source":"R","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4611685/property-acquisition-group-llc-v-ivester/","attorney":"Kristin L. Thurbide, Boston (Josef C. Culik also present) for Kenneth Ivester, III, & another., Brady Hermann, Boston, for Federal National Mortgage Association., Edward J. Fallman for Property Acquisition Group, LLC.","caseName":"Property Acquisition Group, LLC v. Ivester","caseNameFull":"PROPERTY ACQUISITION GROUP, LLC v. Kenneth IVESTER, Third, & Another(and a Companion Case).","citation":["122 N.E.3d 10","95 Mass. App. Ct. 170"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4611685,"court":"Massachusetts Appeals Court","court_citation_string":"Mass. App. Ct.","court_id":"massappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-04-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC 17-P-1518","docket_id":14965289,"judge":"Vuono, Agnes, Henry","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:34:40.663963Z","date_created":"2019-04-19T12:04:35.240994Z","score":{"bm25":29.764446}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2056405,2069337,2101352,2156905,2233045,2526166],"download_url":"https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/18/17P1518.pdf","id":4388938,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/04/18/property_acquisition_group_llc_v._ivester.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:18:17.304109Z","date_created":"2019-04-19T12:04:35.247679Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6b12bdbc1a49dfe0d4967f4ba187e18d6babbe42","snippet":"\n\n\n  HENRY, J.\n \n\n\n   *171\n  \n\n   *13\n  \n  The primary issue in this case is whether the mortgagee, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), exercised good faith and reasonable diligence to protect the interest","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4388938],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4775424/se-property-holdings-v-stewart/","attorney":"","caseName":"SE Property Holdings v. Stewart","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4775424,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit","court_citation_string":"10th Cir.","court_id":"ca10","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-08-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-6103","docket_id":17445762,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:20:47.913956Z","date_created":"2020-08-14T17:00:46.298778Z","score":{"bm25":29.11792}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[131159,146361,169443,392815,544772,652912,675241,702379,732335,784517,1521558,1550496,1866844,1915135,2000197,2023355],"download_url":"http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-6103.pdf","id":4555771,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/08/14/se_property_holdings_v._stewart.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:13:51.583897Z","date_created":"2020-08-14T17:00:46.300730Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dc4b4678878405f36602700f23d562855add2693","snippet":"                                        PUBLISH                                  FILED\n                                                                     United States Court of Appeals\n                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      Tenth Circuit\n\n                                FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                      August 14, 2020\n                            _________________________________\n                                                                    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4555771],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10367984/rebecca-prince-v-aw-construction-and-property-management-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Rebecca Prince v. A&W Construction and Property Management, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10367984,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2023-00449-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":69812336,"judge":"Judge W. Neal McBrayer","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-28T19:55:35.783440Z","date_created":"2025-03-28T19:55:35.710110Z","score":{"bm25":28.451202}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8277,"cites":[1043974,1044019,1044031,1046228,1054759,1057574,1060683,1061010,1061013,1075227,1504836,1530807,1662390,1768608,1777681,1871146,1880895,2410354,2646342,2646979,3152518,4256948,5059840],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%20-M2023-00449-COA-R3-CV.pdf","id":10834572,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/28/rebecca_prince_v._aw_construction_and_property_management_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-03T20:59:16.846581Z","date_created":"2025-03-28T19:55:35.723891Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1251addc54b6cd83def7f66fc30140cebfd16556","snippet":"                                                                                      03/28/2025\n               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                           AT NASHVILLE\n                              February 6, 2024 Session\n\n     REBECCA PRINCE v. A&W CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY\n                  MANAGEMENT, LLC ET AL.\n\n                  Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County\n                       No. 17402 M. Caleb Bayless, Judge\n                     _________________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10834572],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"A property owner filed a complaint against her neighbor and the municipality seeking to enforce a local zoning ordinance. The trial court dismissed the property owner's claims against the municipality. Among other things, the court ruled that mandamus was not available because the property owner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. It also determined that the municipality retained immunity for the tortious acts alleged in the complaint. On appeal, the property owner argues that (1) Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-208(a)(2) authorized her to bring a mandamus action to abate the zoning violation without exercising administrative remedies and (2) the complaint contained sufficient allegations of negligent supervision to withstand a motion to dismiss. Upon review, we affirm the dismissal."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5025340/gaddy-v-se-property-holdings-llc/","attorney":"' Clark B. Hammond, Albert L. Jordan, Matthew D. Fridy, and Susan E. McPherson of Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff & Brandt LLC, Birmingham, for appellants Jerry Gaddy, Earl A. George, and Kent Rector., David Thomas, pro se., Jerry L. Thornton, Hayneville, for appellants Richard V. Harrell, David Harrell, and Stewart Harrell., Adam M. Milam of Milam & Milam, LLC, Daphne, for appellants Dewey Miller and Terry Mullins., Allen E. Graham, William E. Shreve, Jr., and Ashley Swink Fincher (withdrew 4/14/2016), of Phelps Dunbar LLP, Mobile, for appellee SE Property Holdings, LLC; and Jessica M. McDill of Chason & Cha-son, PC, Bay Minette, for appellee Darrell Melton., Russel Myles and S. Fraser Reid III of McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge LLC, Mobile, for appellees Andrew Braswell and Tracy Rippy., William W. Watts III and S. Wesley Pipes of Pipes, Hudson &• Watts, LLP, Mobile, for appellee Daniel J. Sizemore.","caseName":"Gaddy v. SE Property Holdings, LLC","caseNameFull":"Jerry GADDY v. SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC Dewey Miller and Terry Mullins v. SE Property Holdings, LLC","citation":["218 So. 3d 315"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":5025340,"court":"Supreme Court of Alabama","court_citation_string":"Ala.","court_id":"ala","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-05-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1140578, 1140722","docket_id":60266195,"judge":"Bolin, Bryan, Main, Murdock, Parker, Stuart, Wise","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:24:30.950255Z","date_created":"2021-08-23T07:35:57.289361Z","score":{"bm25":28.409653}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4838792,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:05:46.519329Z","date_created":"2021-08-23T07:35:57.315368Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMURDOCK, Justice\n(dissenting).\nThere are two issues in these appeals: (1) Does the dismissal of an action against a defendant protected by an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 necessarily violate that stay? (2) When an action against one of several codefendants is stayed under 11 U.S.C. § 362, is that defendant deemed present in the litigation for purposes of the finality rule in R","type":"dissent"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4838791,4838792],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4599092/woodson-electric-solutions-v-port-royal-property/","attorney":"","caseName":"Woodson Electric Solutions v. Port Royal Property","caseNameFull":"","citation":["271 So. 3d 111"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4599092,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-03-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"18-2194","docket_id":14693145,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:30:09.193604Z","date_created":"2019-03-13T15:05:43.537026Z","score":{"bm25":28.216875}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1710886,1771050,1807010,2496310,2545250,4864926],"download_url":"http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D18-2194.pdf","id":4376345,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/03/13/woodson_electric_solutions_v._port_royal_property.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:09:42.979504Z","date_created":"2019-03-13T15:05:43.549137Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"576590f69b143f9ac55f1b77e392026d1d52e5ad","snippet":"       Third District Court of Appeal\n                               State of Florida\n\n                          Opinion filed March 13, 2019.\n         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.\n\n                               ________________\n\n                               No. 3D18-2194\n                         Lower Tribunal No. 18-29307\n                             ________________\n\n\n              Woodson Electric Solutions, Inc., etc., et al.,\n                        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4376345],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4535480/property-of-the-people-inc-v-office-of-management-and-budget/","attorney":"","caseName":"Property of the People, Inc. v. Office of Management and Budget","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4535480,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-09-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2017-1677","docket_id":7882473,"judge":"Judge Rudolph Contreras","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:12:09.336154Z","date_created":"2018-09-14T23:02:41.688574Z","score":{"bm25":28.157036}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":710,"cites":[109101,109898,110712,118462,184944,185496,185974,186208,186834,187057,187269,206187,214764,288149,299207,350872,358776,375887,486528,491446,495205,501788,556585,592176,796441,1426353,1513919,2175459,2318619,2326859,2445564],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv1677-20","id":4312733,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/09/14/property_of_the_people_inc._v._office_of_management_and_budget.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:25:24.342840Z","date_created":"2018-09-14T23:02:41.710242Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"81e80fb84de40649140c3fbbff216462903a8f08","snippet":"                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nPROERTY OF THE PEOPLE, INC., et al.,             :\n                                                 :\n       Plaintiffs,                               :\n                                                 :       Civil Action No.:      17-1677 (RC)\n       v.                                        :\n                                                 :       Re Document Nos.:      12, 14\nO","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4312733],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9407695/south-lake-tahoe-property-etc-v-city-of-south-lake-tahoe/","attorney":"","caseName":"South Lake Tahoe Property etc. v. City of South Lake Tahoe","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9407695,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C093603","docket_id":67512631,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:08:33.452651Z","date_created":"2023-06-20T17:03:39.177713Z","score":{"bm25":28.146976}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2463,108085,1152597,1268029,1268935,2118876,2122178,2126379,2160925,2165436,2179384,2242521,2252725,2254495,2257820,2261415,2264251,2268869,2287886,2297781,2514219,2586605,3179625,3216651,4094851,4098462,4161533,4286671,4443989,5666685,7802591,8141502,9427988,9428495,9430529,9432979,9433410,9434223,9434790,9435214,9528549,9538135,9542089,9564263,9565081,9581533,9585685,9623309,9629812,9747336,9785497,9786287,9940174],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C093603.PDF","id":9403171,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/06/20/south_lake_tahoe_property_etc._v._city_of_south_lake_tahoe.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T20:48:36.352416Z","date_created":"2023-06-20T17:03:39.179388Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9da68e1540771cf59da0c6ceb24e28e6f829d4e3","snippet":"Filed 6/20/23\n                               CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n\n\n                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n                                THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                             (El Dorado)\n                                                ----\n\n\n\n\nSOUTH LAKE TAHOE PROPERTY OWNERS                                    C093603\nGROUP,\n                                                           (Super. Ct. No. SC20180243)\n                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9403171],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7852565/city-of-houston-v-catrennia-foreman-sauls-individually-and-as/","attorney":"","caseName":"City of Houston v. Catrennia Foreman Sauls, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Dwayne Foreman, And Tristena Christian, as Next Friend of D.F., a Minor","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7852565,"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":"2022-07-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14-20-00485-CV","docket_id":64858363,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:56:23.605981Z","date_created":"2022-08-01T00:21:24.196374Z","score":{"bm25":28.054533}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1369140,2170479,2334136,5286804,5287668],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=35234&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa14%5cOpinion","id":7796431,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/29/city_of_houston_v._catrennia_foreman_sauls_individually_and_as.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:56:23.609006Z","date_created":"2022-08-01T00:21:24.197340Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ef0bcee91ee69f86fa4737cda1c1e0eb5b3714be","snippet":"Affirmed and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed July 29, 2022.\n\n\n\n\n                                          In The\n\n                       Fourteenth Court of Appeals\n\n                                 NO. 14-20-00485-CV\n\n                          CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant\n\n                                             V.\n     CATRENNIA FOREMAN SAULS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS\n   REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DWAYNE FOREMAN,\nDECEASED; AND TRISTENA CHRISTIAN, AS NEXT FRIEND OF D.F., A\n           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7796431],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10629489/leslie-smith-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-marcus-d-smith/","attorney":"","caseName":"Leslie Smith, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Marcus D. Smith v. Rosalinde Minier, as Personal Representative of The Estate of Ingeborg Steiner, and Werner Enterprises, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10629489,"court":"Court of Appeals of Mississippi","court_citation_string":"Miss. Ct. App.","court_id":"missctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2021-CA-01284-COA","docket_id":70759927,"judge":"Westbrooks, Latrice A., J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-11T20:07:41.319950Z","date_created":"2025-07-11T14:50:09.621321Z","score":{"bm25":27.988888}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":16236,"cites":[326053,1103304,1117652,1133541,1610442,1695398,1708101,1708139,1784696,1808863,1809812,1817624,1818426,1855493,1884282,1918325,2534777,3584293,4095338,4122812,4260626,4316936,4345798,4820987,4878319,4922951,4923166,7775074,7990909,9527265,9877714,9887918],"download_url":"https://courts.ms.gov/images/Opinions/CO165347.pdf","id":11096076,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/07/leslie_smith_as_personal_representative_of_the_estate_of_marcus_d._smith.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:16:42.797065Z","date_created":"2025-07-11T14:50:09.634174Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"082670eed786bbb6c6aaa29dfa93f44ccc2161c4","snippet":"        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI\n\n                               NO. 2021-CA-01284-COA\n\nLESLIE SMITH, AS PERSONAL                                                  APPELLANT\nREPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF\nMARCUS D. SMITH\n\nv.\n\nROSALINDE MINIER, AS PERSONAL                                              APPELLEES\nREPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF\nINGEBORG STEINER, AND WERNER\nENTERPRISES, INC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:                         10/21/2021\nTRIAL JUDGE:                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11096076],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6770594/portfolio-disposition-management-group-llc-v-united-states/","attorney":"James Stephen DelSordo, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff., Marla T. Conneely, with whom were Peter D. Keisler, David M. Cohen, and Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant. Rachael Blackburn, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Of Counsel., Alexander J. Brittin, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor-Defendant., John Bergen, law clerk.","caseName":"Portfolio Disposition Management Group LLC v. United States","caseNameFull":"PORTFOLIO DISPOSITION MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC v. The UNITED STATES of America, and Harrington, Moran & Barksdale, Inc., Intervenor-Defendant","citation":["64 Fed. Cl. 1","2005 U.S. Claims LEXIS 71","2005 WL 615736"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":6770594,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2005-02-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 04-1671C","docket_id":63751800,"judge":"Baskir","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T11:09:44.226323Z","date_created":"2022-07-20T20:56:04.522871Z","score":{"bm25":27.949883}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6653451,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T21:03:09.796414Z","date_created":"2022-07-20T20:56:04.532897Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nOPINION\n\nBASKIR, Judge.\nThis case involves a post-award bid protest. Plaintiff, Portfolio Disposition Management Group (“PDM”), was unsuccessful in its bid to manage, market and oversee sales activity for single-family homes owned by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). The contract went to a competing bidder, Harrington, Moran, Barksdale, Inc. (“HMBI”), who offered to perfor","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6653451],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9413020/south-lake-tahoe-property-owners-group-v-city-of-south-lake-tahoe/","attorney":"","caseName":"South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group v. City of South Lake Tahoe","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9413020,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-07-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C093603M","docket_id":67602677,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:10:00.579660Z","date_created":"2023-07-12T20:03:50.807751Z","score":{"bm25":27.80166}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2463,108085,1152597,1268029,1268935,2118876,2122178,2126379,2160925,2165436,2179384,2242521,2252725,2254495,2257820,2261415,2264251,2268869,2287886,2297781,2514219,2586605,3179625,3216651,4094851,4098462,4161533,4286671,4443989,5666685,7802591,8141502,9427988,9428495,9430529,9432979,9433410,9433457,9434223,9434790,9435214,9528549,9538135,9542089,9564263,9565081,9581533,9585685,9623309,9629812,9747336,9785497,9786287,9940174],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C093603M.PDF","id":9408496,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/07/12/south_lake_tahoe_property_owners_group_v._city_of_south_lake_tahoe.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T21:49:25.242124Z","date_created":"2023-07-12T20:03:50.819587Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7e11dfdac5da4016f4cbfdcf00212e6b15f8e910","snippet":"Filed 7/12/23 (unmodified opn. attached)\n                                  CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n\n             IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n                                   THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                            (El Dorado)\n                                               ----\n\n\n\n\nSOUTH LAKE TAHOE PROPERTY OWNERS                                      C093603\nGROUP,\n                                                           (Super. Ct. No. S","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9408496],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1037246/travelers-property-casualty-co-of-america-v-superior-court/","attorney":"Counsel, Weston & McElvain, Wynn C. Kaneshiro and Robin H. Jung for Petitioners Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and Travelers Indemnity Company., Musick, Peeler & Garrett and Steven T. Adams for Petitioner Koram Insurance Center, Inc., No appearance for Respondent., Martin E. Jacobs, Inc., and Martin E. Jacobs for Real Party in Interest.","caseName":"Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Superior Court","caseNameFull":"TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA Et Al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; MICHAEL M. BRAUM, as Trustee, Etc., Real Party in Interest. KORAM INSURANCE CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; MICHAEL M. BRAUM, as Trustee, Etc., Real Party in Interest","citation":["215 Cal. App. 4th 561","13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3898"],"citeCount":27,"cluster_id":1037246,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-04-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"B243650; B244334","docket_id":674006,"judge":"Croskey","lexisCite":"13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3898","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T01:24:06.249807Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T11:23:53.397678Z","score":{"bm25":27.728178}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[70314,1196180,2514219,2621658,5452471],"download_url":"http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B243650.PDF","id":1037246,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2013/04/17/travelers_property_etc._v._super._ct...pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T00:49:01.466768Z","date_created":"2013-08-12T16:05:06.846084Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"86d2a6a3d171ebb44370f6a9a0157151b9eb0b8d","snippet":"\n\n\n \n   *565\n   \n  Opinion\n \n\n  CROSKEY, J.\n \n\n  A developer obtained a construction loan from a bank, and began construction on a multiunit condominium complex. The bank required the developer to maintain builder’s risk insurance (i.e., a construction policy) ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1037246],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6617302/in-the-interest-of-as/","attorney":"Patrick A Pascual, Mary Anne Magnier, Jay K. Goss, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs, for Petitioner-Appellant, Department of Human Services., Francis T. O’Brien, on the briefs, for Respondent-Appellee, Foster Parents., Kimberly S. Towler, on the briefs, for Respondent-Appellee, Volunteer Guardians Ad Litem Program.","caseName":"In the Interest of AS","caseNameFull":"In the Interest of AS","citation":["130 Haw. 486","312 P.3d 1193","2013 WL 1284349","2013 Haw. App. LEXIS 186"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":6617302,"court":"Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Haw. App.","court_id":"hawapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-03-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. CAAP-11-0001065","docket_id":63547636,"judge":"Foley, Fujise, Nakamura","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:27:30.554089Z","date_created":"2022-06-26T23:42:26.105343Z","score":{"bm25":27.154144}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6493633,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T07:17:10.086513Z","date_created":"2022-06-26T23:42:26.120720Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOpinion of the Court by\nFOLEY, J.\nThe Department of Human Services (DHS) appeals from the “Order Re: Trial on Placement” (Placement Order) entered on November 18, 2011, in the Family Court of the First Circuit1 (family court). The Placement Order provides the following, in relevant part:\n1. DHS shall maintain [AS’s] placement in [her foster parents’ (","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6493633],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10636419/celeste-lachapelle-as-the-beneficiary-of-the-will-of-james-russell-pace-v/","attorney":"","caseName":"Celeste Lachapelle as the beneficiary of the will of James Russell Pace v. Blanchard E. Tual","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10636419,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2024-01234-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":70835256,"judge":"Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-18T19:02:03.866390Z","date_created":"2025-07-18T16:15:41.404154Z","score":{"bm25":26.856852}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8279,"cites":[1043932,1043972,1046785,1046869,1049573,1057570,1057574,1060821,1074081,1074763,1078189,1214600,1400410,1745436,1751575,1788427,2384218,2388306,2433399,2441758,2446847,4227627,4418893,5089110,5282493,8300234,9523041,9523049,9775920,9819835],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/LachapelleCelesteOPN.pdf","id":11103006,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/18/celeste_lachapelle_as_the_beneficiary_of_the_will_of_james_russell_pace_v..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:20:13.852568Z","date_created":"2025-07-18T16:15:41.418395Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f9cb8f6752f9cf91e329c193349fb0aee7ac3f3a","snippet":"                                                                                               07/18/2025\n                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                             AT JACKSON\n                                   April 23, 2025 Session\n\n  CELESTE LACHAPELLE AS THE BENEFICIARY OF THE WILL OF\n      JAMES RUSSELL PACE v. BLANCHARD E. TUAL ET AL.\n\n                   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County\n                   No. CT-3792-23    Felicia Corbin Johnson, Judge","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11103006],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Appellant sued the law firm that prepared a will on behalf of her fiancé for professional negligence after an out-of-state will contest resulted in the invalidation of the will. The trial court concluded that Appellant's claim accrued when she was forced to respond to the will contest and not when the will was actually held to be invalid. Thus, Appellant's action was filed after the one-year limitations period had expired, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the law firm. Finding no reversible error, we affirm."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7313398/greenspan-v-brothers-property-corp/","attorney":"Jacob Greenspan, Charleston, SC, pro se., John Sulau, Wendy L. Furhang, Jackson Lewis PC, Greenville, SC, for Defendants.","caseName":"Greenspan v. Brothers Property Corp.","caseNameFull":"Jacob GREENSPAN v. BROTHERS PROPERTY CORPORATION, Brothers Property Management Corporation, Victor Fuller, Ana Reina, Oliver Rooskens","citation":["103 F. Supp. 3d 734","2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57826","2015 WL 1958468"],"citeCount":488,"cluster_id":7313398,"court":"District Court, D. South Carolina","court_citation_string":"D.S.C.","court_id":"scd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-04-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 2:14-cv-3875-RMG","docket_id":64301877,"judge":"Baker, Gergel","lexisCite":"2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57826","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:34:45.171793Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:27:22.502800Z","score":{"bm25":26.172503}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7231303,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:21:28.852104Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:27:22.510862Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER\nRICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.\nThis matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), Dkt. No. 32, recommending that this Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 24) and grant Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 21). For the reason stated below, the Court ADOPTS the R & R, DENIES the motion to strike and GRANTS the motion to r","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7231303],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4440821/the-travelers-property-casualty-company-of-america-v-actavis-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"The Traveler's Property Casualty Company of America v. Actavis, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4440821,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-11-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"G053749","docket_id":6218134,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:45:46.632104Z","date_created":"2017-11-07T00:03:03.470772Z","score":{"bm25":26.076096}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[779511,1158094,1735720,2408250,2638589],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G053749.PDF","id":4218074,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/11/06/the_travelers_property_casualty_company_of_america_v._actavis_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:19:27.769714Z","date_created":"2017-11-07T00:03:03.477485Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1ec5c87007a810c3193c27e7c94b9d4133854ce0","snippet":"Filed 11/06/17\n\n\n\n\n                            CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n             IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                             FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n                                       DIVISION THREE\n\n\nTHE TRAVELER’S PROPERTY\nCASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA\net al.,                                             G053749\n\n    Plaintiffs and Respondents,                     (Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00746842)\n\n        v.                                       ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4218074],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3171021/pacific-shores-property-owners-assn-v-department-of-fish-wildlife/","attorney":"Counsel, The Smith Firm and Kelly T. Smith for Plaintiffs and Appellants., Environmental Law Clinic, Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School, Deborah A. Sivas, Alicia E. Thesing, Matthew J. Sanders and Lauren M. Gollaher for Earl McGrew, Maxine Curtis, Lynda Schoonover, Nicole Solovskoy and Northcoast Environmental Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants., Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, John A. Saurenman, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel L. Siegel, Deborah M. Smith, Carolyn Nelson Rowan and Christie H. Vosburg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants.","caseName":"Pacific Shores Property Owners Ass'n v. Department of Fish & Wildlife","caseNameFull":"PACIFIC SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Et Al., Defendants and Appellants","citation":["244 Cal. App. 4th 12","198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 72","2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 40"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":3171021,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-01-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C070201","docket_id":3029708,"judge":"Nicholson, Butz, Murray","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T18:14:55.239406Z","date_created":"2016-01-20T21:24:48.585730Z","score":{"bm25":25.922468}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104451,215442,697386,769735,780344,1196629,1259041,1345280,2431315,2629934,5452201,5452246],"download_url":"http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C070201.PDF","id":3171021,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/01/20/pacific_shores_v._dept._of_fish_and_wildlife.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T03:47:48.818877Z","date_created":"2016-01-20T21:02:19.211349Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4c3709e1d020c1c3c3db3d3c977445ada6fd2f77","snippet":"\n\n\n  Opinion\n \n\n  NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.\n \n\n  In this inverse condemnation action, we face a unique situation where a state agency assumes control of a local flood control process, and it determines to provide less flood protection than historically provided by a local agency in order to protect environmental resources. We affirm the trial court’s judgment finding the state ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3171021],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}