{"count":12908,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yMy41NTU3NTQmcz0xMDY3MDE2NSZ0PW8mZD0yMDI2LTA5LTA2JnA9Mg%3D%3D&q=DISTINCT+SCOPE+OF+EACH+CLASS+CLASSIFICATION+OF+CLAIMS+AND+INTERESTS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10705118/joel-galarza-v-one-call-claims-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Joel Galarza v. One Call Claims, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10705118,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"11th Cir.","court_id":"ca11","court_jurisdiction":"F","dateArgued":"2025-07-24","dateFiled":"2025-10-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23-13205","docket_id":70905577,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-16T16:01:14.887960Z","date_created":"2025-10-16T16:01:14.790999Z","score":{"bm25":34.49619}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[70514,104448,112710,331985,387447,415583,485274,727287,768100,803898,1034620,4107802,6353471,6930197,8415290,8914838,9495657,9814942],"download_url":"http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202313205.pdf","id":11171705,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/10/16/joel_galarza_v._one_call_claims_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T07:18:50.171371Z","date_created":"2025-10-16T16:01:14.794770Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"34465437969f18eccb57c0270a0f43361b1b8516","snippet":"USCA11 Case: 23-13205    Document: 51-1       Date Filed: 10/16/2025      Page: 1 of 25\n\n\n\n\n                             FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n                                     In the\n                 United States Court of Appeals\n                         For the Eleventh Circuit\n                           ____________________\n                                   No. 23-13205\n                           ____________________\n\n        JOEL GALARZA,\n        VICKI WIMBERLY,\n        KATHRINE CARPENTER,\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11171705],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"NEW","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8712878/withrow-v-sedgwick-claims-management-service-inc/","attorney":"Cynthia M. Ranson, George B. Morrone, III, J. Michael Ranson, Ranson Law Offices, G. Patrick Jacobs, Charleston, WV, for Plaintiff., David A. Prather, Jameson Dylan King, Kathryn W. Pascover, Ford & Harrison, Memphis, TN, C. David Morrison, Steptoe & Johnson, Bridgeport, WV, Joseph U. Leonoro, Steptoe & Johnson, Charleston, WV, for Defendant.","caseName":"Withrow v. Sedgwick Claims Management Service, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Kim WITHROW v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICE, INC.","citation":["841 F. Supp. 2d 972","2012 WL 242773","2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8957"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":8712878,"court":"District Court, S.D. West Virginia","court_citation_string":"S.D.W. Va","court_id":"wvsd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-01-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00993","docket_id":65978790,"judge":"Goodwin","lexisCite":"2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8957","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:05:41.911316Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T04:55:16.833405Z","score":{"bm25":30.48029}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8696068,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T03:53:25.136369Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T04:55:16.840146Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\nJOSEPH R. GOODWIN, Chief Judge.\nPending before the court are the Motion by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., for Summary Judgment [Docket 148], the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 150], and the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA [Docket 157]. For the reasons discussed b","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8696068],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5345034/kilpatrick-v-industrial-claim-appeals-office/","attorney":"Chris Forsyth Law Office, LLC, Christopher Forsyth, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner., Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Emmy A. Langley, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent Industrial Claim Appeals Office., Harvey D. Flewelling, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent Goodwill Industries of Denver and Pinnacol Assurance.","caseName":"Kilpatrick v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office","caseNameFull":"Brian KILPATRICK v. INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF the STATE of Colorado, Goodwill Industries of Denver, and Pinnacol Assurance","citation":["356 P.3d 1008","2015 COA 30","2015 WL 1090077"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":5345034,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-07-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals No. 14CA1003","docket_id":61692707,"judge":"Richman, Taubman, Terry","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-20T17:33:36.829175Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:15:10.075176Z","score":{"bm25":29.835073}},"neutralCite":"2015 COA 30","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5177840,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:22:42.009245Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:15:10.094892Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOpinion by\nJUDGE TAUBMAN\n{1 In this workers' compensation action, we reject the principal argument of claimant, Brian Kilpatrick, that his right to equal protection of the law was violated because district court judges must disclose their financial contributions, while workers' compensation prehearing administrative law judges (PALJs), and administrative law judges (ALJs) and members of the Industrial Claim Appeals ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5177840],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10295533/simballa-v-ohio-dept-of-natural-resources-div-of-oil-gas-resources/","attorney":"","caseName":"Simballa v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Oil & Gas Resources Mgt.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 Ohio 5888"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10295533,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-12-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23AP-695","docket_id":69474394,"judge":"Beatty Blunt","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-12-17T19:12:52.753139Z","date_created":"2024-12-17T19:12:52.662766Z","score":{"bm25":29.733316}},"neutralCite":"2024 Ohio 5888","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108598,3779418,4206387,4354657,6762198,6762927,6763644,6767259,6768465,8980926,9351053,9381758,9422222,9424583,9433999,9435812,9801516,9870278,11150094],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2024/2024-Ohio-5888.pdf","id":10762121,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/12/17/simballa_v._ohio_dept._of_natural_resources_div._of_oil__gas_resources.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T14:28:14.642704Z","date_created":"2024-12-17T19:12:52.675218Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9edcb66bc7bb2bc04950f18e7764a3832ea806b0","snippet":"[Cite as Simballa v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Oil & Gas Resources Mgt., 2024-Ohio-5888.]\n\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nKevin J. Simballa,                                   :\n\n                Appellant-Appellant,                 :\n                                                                             No. 23AP-695\nv.                                                   :                ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10762121],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"On appeal from trial court judgment affirming decision of the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission, which found that appellant's administrative appeal was untimely. The trial court did not err in concluding that appellant was a \"person adversely affected\" by the Chief's Order pooling his mineral rights into a Unit with other rightsholders, and therefore appellant did not perfect his administrative appeal within the time allowed by R.C. 1509.36. The trial court did not err by concluding that R.C. 1509.36 is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of appellant's due process rights, and by finding that the classification set forth in the statute did not violate appellant's rights to equal protection of the laws. Judgment affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8246050/in-re-fannie-maefreddie-mac-senior-preferred-stock-purchase-agreement/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Fannie mae/freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8246050,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-10-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Misc. No. 2013-1288","docket_id":65394563,"judge":"Judge Royce C. Lamberth","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T17:51:54.892017Z","date_created":"2022-10-03T15:00:44.361293Z","score":{"bm25":28.654228}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1844,"cites":[111719,146476,1059258,1530347,1532121,1889298,2273298,2540679,4965943,4967252,4967354,4967895],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013mc1288-198","id":8211313,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/10/03/in_re_fannie_maefreddie_mac_senior_preferred_stock_purchase_agreement.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T01:40:55.443632Z","date_created":"2022-10-03T15:00:44.427409Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3124a2a1d0362fc011adb127b6f2ff4b094b0412","snippet":"                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n    FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC., et al.,\n\n          Plaintiffs,\n\n    v.                                                             Case No. 1:13-cv-1053-RCL\n\n    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE\n    AGENCY, et al.,\n\n          Defendants.\n\n\n    In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior\n    Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class                      Case No. 1:13-mc-1288-RCL\n    Action Litigation","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8211313],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Magistrate Case","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10309962/chambers-v-farmers-ins-of-columbus-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Chambers v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 5"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":10309962,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-01-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"113659","docket_id":69527300,"judge":"Groves","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-08T18:18:10.960921Z","date_created":"2025-01-08T18:18:10.899118Z","score":{"bm25":27.791937}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 5","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103379,308726,620898,685134,2690382,2701920,2704407,2707509,3736917,4030696,4126765,4342046,4384087,4473805,4543932,6758010,6758258,6759826,6760188,6762473,6767228,6777365,8210267],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2025/2025-Ohio-5.pdf","id":10776550,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/01/02/chambers_v._farmers_ins._of_columbus_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T18:59:08.466919Z","date_created":"2025-01-08T18:18:10.913518Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8198013edbf7e0fa41b5fdcf94773c0b21eecf3a","snippet":"[Cite as Chambers v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc., 2025-Ohio-5.]\n\n                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA\n\nRYAN CHAMBERS,                                        :\n\n                Plaintiff-Appellee,                   :\n                                                                     No. 113659\n                v.                                    :\n\nFARMERS INSURANCE O","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10776550],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Class action; certification; abuse of discretion; Civ.R. 23; class definition; adequacy; typicality; commonality; numerosity; predominance; superiority. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee's motion for class certification. The class definition was not overly broad or unascertainable and the Civ.R. 23(A) prerequisites of adequacy, typicality, commonality, and numerosity were established. Moreover, common issues predominate the lawsuit and class action is the superior method of resolution."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9487357/rios-v-commissioner-of-correction/","attorney":"","caseName":"Rios v. Commissioner of Correction","caseNameFull":"","citation":["224 Conn. App. 350"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":9487357,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-03-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC46164","docket_id":68370966,"judge":"Alvord; Elgo; Prescott","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:46.009388Z","date_created":"2024-03-25T13:02:44.488341Z","score":{"bm25":25.76824}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3836,84695,97766,160098,364065,581385,771213,771962,1493952,2320164,2335292,2370884,2560260,2572176,3217447,4188613,4301217,4526463,4581359,4880278,6358470,7846163,7848508,7857011,7858241,8231628,8231642,8932062,9428197,9433923,9475430],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP224/224AP132.pdf","id":9953970,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/03/26/rios_v._commissioner_of_correction.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T09:18:39.677020Z","date_created":"2024-03-25T13:02:44.525372Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"461194a6d678ecf92c2cb751bd2d6426309c1ba2","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, where the petition was withdrawn in part; thereafter, the court, Bhatt, J., denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, and granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the respondent, on the granting of certifica- tion, appealed to this court. Reversed; judgment directed. Edward Rowley, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney gen- eral, for the appellant (respondent). Judie Marshall, assigned counsel, for the appellee (petitioner).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9953970],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The petitioner, who had been convicted of several crimes committed in 2013, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the retroactive application to him of an amended administrative directive of the respon- dent, the Commissioner of Correction, violated the ex post facto clause of the federal constitution. The petitioner claimed that the amendment's change in the calculation of risk reduction credit he could earn toward completion of his sentence resulted in a longer period of incarceration for him and a postponement of his parole eligibility date to a time later than had originally been projected. Under the statutorily (§ 18-98e) created risk reduction earned credits program, the respondent had the sole discretion to award up to five days of risk reduction credit per month toward the completion of eligible inmates' sentences. Under the administrative directive in effect in 2013, the petitioner had been earning five days of risk reduction credit per month. In 2016, when the respon- dent amended the 2013 administrative directive to align the award of risk reduction credit with inmates' overall risk classification levels, the petitioner began earning risk reduction credit at a rate of three days per month due to his risk classification. The petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming, inter alia, that he had earned approxi- mately 104 fewer risk reduction credits from the time that the 2016 administrative directive was applied to him until the time of the habeas proceedings than he would have earned under the 2013 administrative directive. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the habeas petition, arguing that, pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 23-29 (1)), the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the habeas petition and, alternatively, that, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (2), the peti- tioner had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The habeas court granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the 2016 administrative directive was a law within the meaning of the ex post facto clause and that its retroactive application to the petitioner violated the ex post facto clause because it created a sufficient risk of prolonging his incarceration. The court rendered judgment denying the respondent's motion to dismiss and granting the habeas petition, from which the respondent, on the granting of certifica- tion, appealed to this court. Held that the habeas court improperly granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment and improperly denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the habeas petition, as the 2016 amended administrative directive did not constitute a law within the meaning of the ex post facto clause, and, thus, the petitioner failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted: whereas the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to penal statutes that disadvantage the offender affected by them, the 2016 administrative directive was not a law but an internal Department of Correction policy that the respondent adopted in his sole discretion, pursuant to § 18-98e (f), to determine the amount of risk reduction credit that inmates may earn according to their overall security risk level, as the adoption of the 2016 administrative directive was an Executive Branch function that was part of the respondent's responsibility to oversee the internal management of the correctional system; moreover, although the peti- tioner correctly asserted that administrative regulations may implicate the ex post facto clause, the respondent did not adopt the 2016 adminis- trative directive in the exercise of authority delegated to him by the legislature to promulgate rules, which are subject to the notice and comment procedures under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (§ 4-166 et seq.), as the 2016 administrative directive was not a regulation subject to legislative approval but was merely a notice regarding how the respondent chose to exercise his unilateral statutory discretion con- cerning risk reduction credit; furthermore, the petitioner's failure to demonstrate that the 2016 administrative directive was a law within the meaning of the ex post facto clause meant that his claim was legally insufficient; accordingly, the habeas court improperly failed to grant the respondent's motion to dismiss on the ground that the habeas petition failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (2). Argued November 6, 2023—officially released March 26, 2024"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10677560/nhl-v-city-of-pgh-aplt/","attorney":"","caseName":"NHL v. City of Pgh., Aplt.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10677560,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-09-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20 WAP 2024","docket_id":71452161,"judge":"Wecht, David N.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-25T13:11:20.514050Z","date_created":"2025-09-25T13:11:20.423737Z","score":{"bm25":25.760597}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2090801,2110414,2309682,2352251,3847748,3850614,4971672,9516445,9645412,9700354,9711652,9748572],"download_url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-25-2025mo - 106520854328089658.pdf","id":11144147,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/09/25/nhl_v._city_of_pgh._aplt..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:25:13.708593Z","date_created":"2025-09-25T13:11:20.442282Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d020debfb96ee9a11bb9561e9a986d54356af788","snippet":"                                   [J-25-2025]\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n                                WESTERN DISTRICT\n\nTODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ.\n\n\n     NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE PLAYERS               :   No. 20 WAP 2024\n     ASSOCIATION, MAJOR LEAGUE                    :\n     BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION,                :   Appeal from the Order of the\n     NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE                     :   Commonwealth C","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11144147],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9986619/askew-v-city-of-kinston/","attorney":"","caseName":"Askew v. City of Kinston","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9986619,"court":"Supreme Court of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C.","court_id":"nc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-06-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"55A23","docket_id":68897199,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-28T16:06:54.186922Z","date_created":"2024-06-28T16:06:54.138043Z","score":{"bm25":25.425722}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104272,109815,111114,112905,1158475,1158831,1216766,1233105,1239218,1257870,1323826,1327044,1327275,1327821,1328029,1330834,1334312,1359086,1370091,1384123,1392263,3652102,3672706,4251416,4251434,6699365,6720651,6722594,6722681,6723440],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=43733","id":10453228,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/06/28/askew_v._city_of_kinston.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T01:07:34.590324Z","date_created":"2024-06-28T16:06:54.139880Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dfde71d1ab3daa956269de4d3a718785da9f6e4e","snippet":"                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                       No. 55A23\n\n                                  Filed 28 June 2024\n\nJOSEPH ASKEW, CHARLIE GORDON WADE III, and CURTIS WASHINGTON\n\n              v.\nCITY OF KINSTON, a municipal corporation\n\n\n      On appeal of right of a substantial constitutional question pursuant to\n\nN.C.G.S. § 7A-30(1) of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 287 N.C. App.\n\n222 (2022), vacating an order of summary judgment enter","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10453228],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Whether plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a Corum claim under Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5174371/smith-v-government-of-the-district-of-columbia/","attorney":"","caseName":"Smith v. Government of the District of Columbia","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5174371,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-09-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2015-0737","docket_id":60497898,"judge":"Judge Royce C. Lamberth","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:03:03.449441Z","date_created":"2021-09-29T18:01:53.335917Z","score":{"bm25":25.397074}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1844,"cites":[105222,109881,110733,110925,110979,111620,111719,112089,112209,112763,145777,149702,185950,186553,186596,520975,1543581,2176284],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv0737-141","id":4995640,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/09/29/smith_v._government_of_the_district_of_columbia.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-28T21:28:52.204964Z","date_created":"2021-09-29T18:01:53.378709Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3dd348468dc4ec94094cf5d34ca506c72748b3ba","snippet":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nMAGGIE SMITH, et al.,\nPlaintiffs,\n\nV. Case No. 1:15-cv-00737-RCL\n\nDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,\n\nDefendant.\n\n \n\n \n\nMEMORANDUM OPINION\n\nThe District of Columbia is no stranger to challenges to its gun laws. After the Supreme\n\n‘Court struck down a District law banning all handgun possession, see District of Columbia v.\nHeller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the District has been stuck in a back-and-forth with residents and\nnon-residents alike who seek to r","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4995640],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10627548/city-of-st-louis-v-state-of-missouri/","attorney":"","caseName":"City of St. Louis v. State of Missouri","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10627548,"court":"Supreme Court of Missouri","court_citation_string":"Mo.","court_id":"mo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC99876","docket_id":70757760,"judge":"Russell, C.J., Powell, Fischer, Ransom and Wilson, JJ., concur. Gooch, J., not participating.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-11T20:04:09.569387Z","date_created":"2025-07-11T14:17:16.071994Z","score":{"bm25":25.387712}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1656385,1761874,2417527,2419601,2427046,2438713,2442309,2540396,2544154,2545099,4427357,5095773,5109534,5112915,5113285,5113966,5114486,9516832,9759209,9763465,9768126,9778270,9809884],"download_url":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205116","id":11094135,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/30/city_of_st._louis_v._state_of_missouri.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:15:33.223828Z","date_created":"2025-07-11T14:17:16.113463Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e6965174f8aae635f788b0f1598d14add2c0168d","snippet":"              SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI\n                                          en banc\nCITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,                   )          Opinion issued January 30, 2024\n                                             )\n                            Appellants,      )\n                                             )\nv.                                           )          No. SC99876\n                                             )\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, et al.,                   )\n                   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[4932,4944,4955],"panel_names":["Zel Fischer","Mary Rhodes Russell","Paul C. Wilson"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11094135],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4283834/ac-interests-lp-formerly-american-coatings-lp-v-texas-commission-on/","attorney":"","caseName":"AC Interests L.P., Formerly American Coatings, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4283834,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp1","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-07-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"01-15-00378-CV","docket_id":4450393,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T11:34:17.183089Z","date_created":"2016-09-29T20:02:25.437287Z","score":{"bm25":25.118637}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[488616,895280,1449946,1464180,1502528,1591426,1662577,1680045,1743830,2003577,2101830,2105076,2277356,2280067,2429543],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=60237&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa02%5cOpinion","id":4061095,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/07/09/ac_interests_l.p._formerly_american_coatings_l.p._v._texas_commission_on.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T11:34:17.171991Z","date_created":"2016-09-29T20:02:25.445773Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4412e15d5f1d1cc3fe513af5008e833c09dbd829","snippet":"                                                                                             ACCEPTED\n                                                                                         01-15-00378-CV\n                                                                              FIRST COURT OF APPEALS\n                                                                                      HOUSTON, TEXAS\n                                                                                     7/9/201","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4061095],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4612116/janet-l-himsel-martin-richard-himsel-robert-j-lannon-susan-m-lannon/","attorney":"Attorneys for Appellants: Kim E. Ferraro, Samuel J. Henderson, Gary, Indiana, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Hendricks County: Gregory E. Steuerwald, Graham T. Youngs, Danville, Indiana, Attorney for Amicus curiae the indiana bankers association: Martha R. Lehman, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Amicus curiae Indiana agricultural law foundation, inc.: Todd J. Janzen, Brianna J. Schroeder, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae indiana pork producers association, inc.: Daniel P. McInerny, Andrew M. McNeil, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellees: Christopher J. Braun, Jonathan P. Emenhiser, Justin A. Allen, Kyle A. Lansberry, Brandon W. Ehrie, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellees-intervenor state of indiana: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Aaron T. Craft, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana","caseName":"Janet L. Himsel, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon v. Samuel Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, and Co-Alliance, LLP and State of Indiana","caseNameFull":"Janet L. HIMSEL, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. Samuel HIMSEL, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC and Co-Alliance, LLP, Appellees-Defendants, and State of Indiana, Appellee-Intervenor.","citation":["122 N.E.3d 935"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":4612116,"court":"Indiana Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ind. Ct. App.","court_id":"indctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-04-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals Case 18A-PL-645","docket_id":14973870,"judge":"Altice","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:34:52.715630Z","date_created":"2019-04-22T15:03:50.225701Z","score":{"bm25":24.913263}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100934,109924,142894,852318,852390,852597,853600,2079291,2104958,2149780,2210412,2231992,2249026,2276567,2437096,2523504],"download_url":"http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04221901rra.pdf","id":4389369,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/04/22/janet_l._himsel_martin_richard_himsel_robert_j._lannon_susan_m._lannon.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:18:38.795527Z","date_created":"2019-04-22T15:03:50.233036Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7eb88c5373ff3eab049d4a3a3a3831088b428e37","snippet":"\n\n\n  Altice, Judge.\n \n\n\n   Case Summary\n  \n\n\n  [1] Martin Richard Himsel, Janet L. Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, and Susan M. Lannon (collectively, the Plaintiffs) filed a complaint, alleging nuisance, negligence, and trespass, against Samuel T. Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, and Co-Alliance, LLP (collectively, the Defendants). Speci","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4389369],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4616172/jennifer-sweda-v-university-of-pennsylvania/","attorney":"\n  Jennifer SWEDA; Benjamin A. Wiggins; Robert L. Young ; Faith Pickering; Pushkar Sohoni; Rebecca N. Toner, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania Matching Plan, Appellants\n  \n  v.\n  \n  UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; Investment Committee; Jack Heuer\n ","caseName":"Jennifer Sweda v. University of Pennsylvania","caseNameFull":"Jennifer SWEDA; Benjamin A. Wiggins; Robert L. Young ; Faith Pickering; Pushkar Sohoni; Rebecca N. Toner, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries on Behalf of the University of Pennsylvania Matching Plan, Appellants v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; Investment Committee; Jack Heuer","citation":["923 F.3d 320"],"citeCount":131,"cluster_id":4616172,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","court_citation_string":"3rd Cir.","court_id":"ca3","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-05-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17-3244","docket_id":15043111,"judge":"Fisher, Roth","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:36:21.377219Z","date_created":"2019-05-02T18:00:14.338467Z","score":{"bm25":24.746128}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2359,104034,112747,112862,112867,118008,118039,118362,118471,121159,145730,145833,145875,223618,362791,405063,430992,458539,458689,515738,577227,615939,697673,711127,797186,1023320,1310416,1380838,1456482,1460212,1466164,2680438,2801430],"download_url":"https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173244p.pdf","id":4393425,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/05/02/jennifer_sweda_v._university_of_pennsylvania.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:21:37.263988Z","date_created":"2019-05-02T18:00:14.343850Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fb4efe8fc096a59665f410db55ff1749eb532b25","snippet":"                                             PRECEDENTIAL\n\n        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT\n                     ______\n\n                        No. 17-3244\n                          ______\n\nJENNIFER SWEDA; BENJAMIN A. WIGGINS; ROBERT\n                         L. YOUNG;\nFAITH PICKERING; PUSHKAR SOHONI; REBECCA N.\n                           TONER,\n individually and as representatives of a class of participants\n                              and\n  beneficiari","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9888445,9888446,4393425],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7028694/national-classification-committee-v-united-states/","attorney":"William W. Pugh, Alexandria, VA, argued the cause, for petitioners. On brief, was John R. Bagileo, Washington, DC. Rosalind C. Cohen, Washington, DC, entered an appearance., Michael Martin, Atty., I.C.C., Washington, DC, argued the cause, for respondents. On brief, were Robert S. Burk, Gen. Counsel, I.C.C., Craig M. Keats, Associate Gen. Counsel, I.C.C., and Robert B. Nicholson and John P. Fonte, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC., Daniel J. Sweeney, Washington, DC, argued the cause, for intervenors. On the joint brief, were Richard D. Fortin and Nicholas J. DiMichael, Washington, DC.","caseName":"National Classification Committee v. United States","caseNameFull":"NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE and National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc. v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Mallinckrodt Specialty Chemicals Company, The National Industrial Transportation League, Intervenors","citation":["22 F.3d 1174","306 U.S. App. D.C. 92","1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10845","1994 WL 168536"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":7028694,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1994-05-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 92-1212","docket_id":64017018,"judge":"Henderson, Mikva, Williams","lexisCite":"1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10845","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T12:16:55.595516Z","date_created":"2022-07-23T23:57:27.986895Z","score":{"bm25":24.437649}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6930549,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T22:05:47.996623Z","date_created":"2022-07-23T23:57:27.997295Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n*1175Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON.\nConcurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS.\nKAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge:\nThe National Classification Committee (NCC) seeks review of a decision by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission) ordering the NCC to ca","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6930549,6930550],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6475418/city-of-fresno-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"City of Fresno v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6475418,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-06-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"16-1276","docket_id":63365678,"judge":"Armando O. Bonilla","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:49:00.835860Z","date_created":"2022-06-07T13:01:04.282905Z","score":{"bm25":24.27958}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104812,106395,111620,111719,111722,207966,210985,211095,422302,483919,525110,624038,663181,727404,738323,748428,762193,777604,777648,777949,781352,782918,786478,2306853,2433426,3306139],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1276-227-0","id":6347529,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/06/06/city_of_fresno_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T03:01:55.110315Z","date_created":"2022-06-07T13:01:04.331579Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"07222a968d0ce4cd9d0cff0d45dcdb077dd49d07","snippet":"          In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n                                    FOR PUBLICATION\n\n                                         No. 16-1276C\n                                      (Filed: June 6, 2022)\n\n                                              )\n CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,                      )\n                                              )\n               Plaintiffs,                    )\n          v.                                  )\n                                     ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6347529],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED OPINION DISMISSING CASE: Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant's and defendant-intervenors' [207] and [208] cross-motions for summary judgment are GRANTED as to breach of contract liability. The Clerk is directed to ENTER judgment. No costs. Signed by Judge Armando O. Bonilla. (ead) Service on parties made."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4630546/people-v-interest-of-tb/","attorney":"Attorneys for Respondent: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Kevin E. McReynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner: Lord Law Firm, LLC, Kathleen A. Lord, Denver, Colorado","caseName":"People v. Interest of T.B.","caseNameFull":"The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent IN the INTEREST OF T.B., Petitioner","citation":["2019 CO 53","445 P.3d 1049"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":4630546,"court":"Supreme Court of Colorado","court_citation_string":"Colo.","court_id":"colo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-06-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17SC66, People","docket_id":15789894,"judge":"Márquez, Gabriel","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:40:17.982958Z","date_created":"2019-06-18T17:02:20.438882Z","score":{"bm25":24.133253}},"neutralCite":"2019 CO 53","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2561,198407,532623,765665,891602,1354493,1358878,1359912,1386449,1757784,1773571,2318283,2599357,2613209,2674678,2684217,3168560,3170039,3185985,3185986,4271643,4403307,5152817,5154046,5177241,5177957,5177972,5177983,9428688,9428936,9431452,9431982,9433821,9434078,9479492,9492465,9558440,9654908,9683927,9716625,9792505,9808711,9879447],"download_url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/opinions/6-17-19/2019 CO 53.pdf","id":4407799,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/06/17/in_the_interest_of_t.b.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T02:43:23.636766Z","date_created":"2019-06-18T17:02:20.445858Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b1669dcc27b7d042677ba9a9e253b217dc56a0bf","snippet":"             Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the\n         public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch’s homepage at\n           http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the\n           Colorado Bar Association’s homepage at http://www.cobar.org.\n\n\n                                                          ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE\n                                                                        June 17, 2019\n\n                                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4407799,9888763,9888764],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4847513/sanchez-v-office-of-the-state-superintendent-of-education/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sanchez v. Office of the State Superintendent of Education","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4847513,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-01-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2018-0975","docket_id":29104448,"judge":"Judge Rudolph Contreras","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:40:36.195928Z","date_created":"2021-01-13T23:00:28.941815Z","score":{"bm25":23.826275}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":710,"cites":[102013,109009,181303,185863,185984,186599,673794,1436710,1936861,2316669,2576059,3187025,4408695,4537692,9419885,9428110,9430072,9432751,9432817,9434047,9435053,9435068,9435339,9732981,9842686,9843120],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv0975-39","id":4651292,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/01/13/sanchez_v._office_of_the_state_superintendent_of_education.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T07:06:12.561374Z","date_created":"2021-01-13T23:00:28.963253Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"68a0441f776d7410b156b79c64e7c59770af0266","snippet":"                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nALTAGRACIA SANCHEZ, et al.,          :\n                                     :\n     Plaintiffs,                     :                    Civil Action No.:       18-975 (RC)\n                                     :\n     v.                              :                    Re Document Nos.:       32, 33\n                                     :\nOFFICE OF THE STATE                  :\nSUPERIN","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4651292],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10357084/daly-v-dept-of-children-families/","attorney":"","caseName":"Daly v. Dept. of Children & Families","caseNameFull":"","citation":["231 Conn. App. 381"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10357084,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC47155","docket_id":69744550,"judge":"Suarez; Westbrook; Keller","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:54.707991Z","date_created":"2025-03-17T12:05:14.442579Z","score":{"bm25":23.563896}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1990,1490739,2716490,2982717,4389315,7859715,7864294,7864316,8410275],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP231/AP231.140.pdf","id":10823672,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/18/daly_v._dept._of_children__families.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:54.678541Z","date_created":"2025-03-17T12:05:14.444188Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9ddb1d3fc00798450bf29bcc46dc3a5e1cda4024","snippet":"************************************************\n   The “officially released” date that appears near the\nbeginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be\npublished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it\nis released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the\nbeginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-\nion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-\ncially released” date appearing in the opinion.\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncor","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Administrative appeal from the decision of a hearing officer of the defendant upholding the decision of the defendant to substantiate allegations of sexual abuse and to place the plaintiff's name on the Central Registry of Persons Responsible for Child Abuse and Neglect, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain and tried to the court, Hon. Henry S. Cohn, judge trial referee; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Christopher DeMarco, for the appellant (plaintiff). Matthew J. Parenti, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney gen- eral, and Nisa J. Khan, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10823672],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff, a former high school substitute teacher, appealed from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of a hearing officer for the defendant Department of Children and Families, who upheld the department's decision to substantiate allegations of sexual abuse of A, a high school student, and to place the plaintiff's name on its child abuse and neglect central registry. While working as a substitute teacher at A's high school, the plaintiff had engaged A through social media, met with her at a shopping plaza and a park, and kissed her. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's finding that he had sexually abused A. Held: The trial court properly concluded that the findings and conclusion of the hearing officer upholding the substantiation of the allegations of sexual abuse with respect to A were supported by substantial evidence. The trial court properly determined that the hearing officer did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of her discretion in upholding the department's decision to place the plaintiff's name on its central registry, as the hearing officer found that all three criteria in the department's policy manual for placement of the plaintiff's name on the central registry, intent, severity, and chronicity, were supported by substantial evidence. Argued November 13, 2024—officially released March 18, 2025"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10670165/nakoa-iii-v-governor-of-the-state-of-hawaii/","attorney":"","caseName":"Nakoa III v. Governor of the State of Hawai'i.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10670165,"court":"Hawaii Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Haw.","court_id":"haw","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-09-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SCAP-24-0000401","docket_id":71322433,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-12T01:04:08.541652Z","date_created":"2025-09-12T01:04:07.616808Z","score":{"bm25":23.555754}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[96230,1150326,1166996,1175338,1240737,1974550,2283099,2547083,2634942,4379651,4432892,5123571,6317757,9385004,9506471,9506528,9506530,9527697,9548637,9897872,11072014],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SCAP-24-0000401.pdf","id":11136752,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/09/11/nakoa_iii_v._governor_of_the_state_of_hawaii._1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T03:39:22.316715Z","date_created":"2025-09-12T01:04:07.626272Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dc7468a6c71a6f70aa87ffc65830c1ad91edd45e","snippet":"*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***\n\n\n\n\n                                                         Electronically Filed\n                                                         Supreme Court\n                                                         SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                                         11-SEP-2025\n                                                         12:34 PM\n                                                         Dkt. 36 OP\n","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SCAP-24-0000401.pdf","id":11136746,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/09/11/nakoa_iii_v._governor_of_the_state_of_hawaii..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T21:59:49.194440Z","date_created":"2025-09-11T23:05:07.719359Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d1999fd465574d53542c042bf559f328b82bb7a9","snippet":"*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***\n\n\n\n\n                                                         Electronically Filed\n                                                         Supreme Court\n                                                         SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                                         11-SEP-2025\n                                                         12:34 PM\n                                                         Dkt. 36 OP\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11136746,11136752],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}