{"count":3372,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xNy44NjQ5MzMmcz0xNzM5MDcmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wNy0yOSZwPTI%3D&q=DONOR+STANDING+STANDING+TO+ENFORCE+TRUST&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10035027/indiana-right-to-life-victory-fund-v-diego-morales/","attorney":"","caseName":"Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund v. Diego Morales","caseNameFull":"","citation":["112 F.4th 466"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10035027,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"7th Cir.","court_id":"ca7","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-08-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-1562","docket_id":66833630,"judge":"Scudder","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:37:40.262787Z","date_created":"2024-08-08T22:00:43.278146Z","score":{"bm25":33.867573}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8633,"cites":[749,109380,218508,618702,619845,780628,786261,1085590,2996944,4453958,4696350,9390105,9413187,9426519,9431573,9432577,9435422,9795100,9802468,9888151],"download_url":"https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2024/D08-08/C:22-1562:J:Scudder:aut:T:fnOp:N:3246794:S:0","id":10501628,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/08/08/indiana_right_to_life_victory_fund_v._diego_morales.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T23:57:40.370539Z","date_created":"2024-08-08T22:00:43.303783Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1bf0bc7e51b07500f6e426abc0ae3a7a88a57b83","snippet":"                             In the\n\n    United States Court of Appeals\n                For the Seventh Circuit\n                    ____________________\nNo. 22-1562\nINDIANA RIGHT TO LIFE VICTORY FUND and SARKES TARZIAN,\nINCORPORATED,\n                                      Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n\n                                v.\n\nDIEGO MORALES, et al.,\n                                            Defendants-Appellees.\n                    ____________________\n\n        Appeal from the United States","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10501628],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4861807/derblom-v-archdiocese-of-hartford/","attorney":"","caseName":"Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford","caseNameFull":"","citation":["203 Conn. App. 197"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":4861807,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-03-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC42630","docket_id":59711799,"judge":"Lavine; Prescott; Alexander","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:46.901011Z","date_created":"2021-03-08T13:03:47.985862Z","score":{"bm25":32.04092}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1539789,1973090,2003746,2315632,3322993,3323316],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/ap203/203AP139.pdf","id":4665586,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/03/09/derblom_v._archdiocese_of_hartford.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:46.954176Z","date_created":"2021-03-08T13:03:47.988017Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a3c67bc6ea81ba5497e4a7524b65ef28ed369aa6","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action, inter alia, seeking the establishment of a con- structive trust, and for other relief, brought to the Supe- rior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, where the court, Pierson, J., granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Affirmed. Drzislav Coric, with whom was Cody A. Layton, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Kay A. Williams, with whom was Lorinda S. Coon, for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4665586],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiffs, the executrix of the estate of R, several former students of a defunct Catholic school located in Madison that was the residual beneficiary of R's estate, the students' parents, and M Co., a corporation operating a private school that is purporting to be the successor to the defunct school, brought this action for relief against the defendant. After R died in 2013, the residuary of his estate was distributed to the defunct school in accordance with his will. In 2018, the defendant announced that, for financial reasons, it would be closing the defunct school and establishing a new school in Branford. Some of the parents of the students attending the defunct school then formed M Co., with the intent of establishing a new Catholic school in Madison. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the residuary clause in R's will created a construc- tive trust for the benefit of the plaintiffs and that the defendant had a duty to convey the funds to M Co., as successor to the defunct school, or to return the funds to R's estate for distribution to his heirs. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that none of the plaintiffs had standing to enforce the charitable gift. The trial court granted the motion and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Held that the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs lacked standing: the trial court did not err in construing R's bequest as an absolute or outright gift to the defunct school instead of as an endowment that created a charitable trust benefitting the plaintiffs; the residuary clause of the will did not limit the expenditure of principal, restrict the manner in which the funds could be used, name any beneficiaries or a trustee, or include any other language evidencing an intent to form a trust or to exercise any future control over the residue of the estate; moreover, the trial court did not err in concluding that the special interest exception to the rule that the attorney general has exclusive authority to bring an action to enforce charitable gifts was inapplicable to confer standing to the plaintiffs as the exception is limited to actions involving charitable trusts and R's bequest to the defunct school constituted an outright gift, extending the exception to include charitable gifts would undermine their nature as, unlike with charitable trusts, when a donor completes a gift he immediately and irrevocably transfers and relinquishes all control over the gifted property, and the plaintiffs failed to provide any legal authority to support their assertion that the exception should be extended to completed charitable gifts. Argued October 20, 2020—officially released March 9, 2021"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2036514/colavito-v-new-york-organ-donor-network-inc/","attorney":"Denise Winter Luparello, Hicksville, and Victor M. Serby, Woodmere, for appellant., Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York City (Richard E. Lerner and Robin N. Gregory of counsel), for respondents., Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Caitlin J. Halligan, Daniel Smirlock and Owen Demuth of counsel), for State of New York Department of Health, amicus curiae., Alexandra K. Glazier, Newton, Massachusetts, admitted pro hac vice, Taylor, Duane, Barton and Gilman LLP, Boston, Massachusetts (Pamela S. Gilman and Andrew R. Weiner, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and John D. Persons, III, Richmond, Virginia, admitted pro hac vice, for American Association of Tissue Banks and others, amici curiae., O’Connell and Aronowitz, PC., Albany (Cornelius D. Murray of counsel), for New York Alliance for Donation, Inc., amicus curiae.","caseName":"Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Patricia Colavito, as Personal Representative for Robert Colavito, Deceased, Appellant, v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc., Et Al., Respondents","citation":["860 N.E.2d 713","8 N.Y.3d 43","827 N.Y.S.2d 96"],"citeCount":281,"cluster_id":2036514,"court":"New York Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"NY","court_id":"ny","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2006-12-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":1870372,"judge":"Rosenblatt","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T08:17:11.366738Z","date_created":"2015-09-17T18:15:52.808088Z","score":{"bm25":27.855787}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1224099,1975547,2057198,2573011,2590718,3578265,3594282,3595474,3625493,3629958,5179920,5241401,5957943,8409895],"download_url":null,"id":2036514,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T16:15:57.560070Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:07:48.321705Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b45a8f3610f68a5d98d3c188690f64581d556894","snippet":"\n8 N.Y.3d 43 (2006)\n860 N.E.2d 713\n827 N.Y.S.2d 96\nPATRICIA COLAVITO, as Personal Representative for ROBERT COLAVITO, Deceased, Appellant,\nv.\nNEW YORK ORGAN DONOR NETWORK, INC., et al., Respondents.\nCourt of Appeals of the State of New York.\nArgued November 14, 2006.\nDecided December 14, 2006.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[5219,5228,5243,5249],"panel_names":["Victoria A. Graffeo","Judith Smith Kaye","Eugene F. Pigott Jr.","Susan Phillips Read"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2036514],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4844862/larry-ackers-v-comerica-bank-trust-na-trustee-of-the-larry-ackers/","attorney":"","caseName":"Larry Ackers v. Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A., Trustee of the Larry Ackers Generation Skipping Trust","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4844862,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Eastland","court_id":"txctapp11","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-12-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"11-18-00352-CV","docket_id":28031048,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:37:51.724236Z","date_created":"2021-01-02T06:15:44.696432Z","score":{"bm25":26.998579}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1485438,1762549,5288031],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=11034&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa11%5cOpinion","id":4648641,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/12/31/larry_ackers_v._comerica_bank__trust_n.a._trustee_of_the_larry_ackers.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:37:51.737216Z","date_created":"2021-01-02T06:15:44.698231Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a0862fac7d7b73f1c3e6008a7a43097f4ba58f9a","snippet":"Opinion filed December 31, 2020\n\n\n\n\n                                        In The\n\n        Eleventh Court of Appeals\n                                     __________\n\n                               No. 11-18-00352-CV\n                                   __________\n\n                         LARRY ACKERS, Appellant\n                                           V.\n                 COMERICA BANK & TRUST, N.A.,\n                TRUSTEE OF THE LARRY ACKERS\n              GENERATION SKIPPING TRUST, Appellee\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4648641],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9383782/derblom-v-archdiocese-of-hartford/","attorney":"","caseName":"Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford","caseNameFull":"","citation":["346 Conn. 333"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":9383782,"court":"Supreme Court of Connecticut","court_citation_string":"Conn.","court_id":"conn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC20584","docket_id":67011641,"judge":"Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-01T02:58:56.601672Z","date_created":"2023-03-15T13:02:42.987033Z","score":{"bm25":25.993982}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR346/346CR18.pdf","id":9379258,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/14/derblom_v._archdiocese_of_hartford.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-13T21:01:39.563410Z","date_created":"2023-03-15T13:02:43.050791Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0489d23a12dcb59dbc608ee3a95863bf6954ad1f","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"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[1112919,1332021,1390583,1410947,1973090,1997832,2150131,2248852,2284440,2285952,3275608,3320143,3331570,4029562,4665586,5574358,5585879,6068462,6181159,6588799,6607974,7815014,7841638,7843964,7845124,7851325,7858695,7859943,9586491,9609048],"download_url":null,"id":11297844,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/14/derblom_v._archdiocese_of_hartford_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-01T03:16:38.677205Z","date_created":"2026-04-01T02:51:04.916693Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"49be6fad52bb905068242e799727968553a9c6d7","snippet":"March 14, 2023                  CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  Page 3\n\n\n\n\n         346 Conn. 333                MARCH, 2023                                 333\n                              Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford\n\n\n                 MARIA J. DERBLOM, EXECUTRIX (ESTATE\n                     OF FRED H. RETTICH), ET AL. v.\n                      ARCHDIOCESE OF HARTFORD\n                               (SC 20584)\n                 Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auri","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action to establish a constructive trust, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis- trict of New Haven, where the court, Pierson, J., granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and rendered judg- ment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, Lavine, Prescott and Alexander, Js., which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the plaintiffs, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Affirmed. Drzislav Coric, with whom were Brandon Marley and, on the brief, Cody A. Layton, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Lorinda S. Coon, with whom were John W. Sitarz and, on the brief, Kay A. Williams, for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9379258,11297844],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiffs, who were the putative beneficiaries of a testamentary bequest that R had made to a defunct archdiocesan school (OLM) under the auspices of the defendant archdiocese, sought, inter alia, to establish and enforce the terms of a constructive trust. The plaintiffs are the executrix of R's estate, eleven former students of OLM and their parents, and M Co., which operates a private Catholic school that purports to be OLM's successor. Before his death, R donated a large sum of money to OLM, as it was important to him that parents be able to send their children to a Catholic school in the town of Madison, where OLM was located. After R died, his residual estate was distributed to OLM pursuant to his will, which contained a residuary clause in favor of OLM ''or its successor, for its general uses and purposes.'' The defendant thereafter announced that it would close OLM and another archdiocesan school and open a new school in the town of Branford. Some parents of students attending OLM, including some of the plaintiff parents, subsequently formed M Co., intending to establish a new Catholic school in Madison that would retain OLM's mission. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that R's bequest to OLM should be viewed as an endowment that resulted in a constructive trust benefiting the plaintiff students, with the defendant acting as trustee, and that the defendant had an equitable duty to convey the unspent portion of the bequest to M Co., as OLM's ''successor,'' or back to R's estate. The executrix of R's estate also sought a judgment declaring whether the endowment should be conveyed to M Co., or some other appropriate entity, for the benefit of the plaintiffs or if the endowment to OLM had lapsed with no clear successor, such that the funds should be returned to R's estate. The defendant moved to dismiss the action, contending that none of the plaintiffs had standing to enforce the terms of a completed charitable gift to a school. The defendant relied on the common-law rule, codified by statute (§ 3-125), that the state attorney general has the exclusive authority to bring an action to enforce the terms of a charitable gift. The plaintiffs objected on the ground that they had standing under the exception to that rule for persons who have a special interest in the enforcement of a charitable trust. The trial court, however, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, and the Appellate Court affirmed, agreeing with the trial court that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The Appellate Court concluded that R's bequest to OLM was an outright or 334 MARCH, 2023 346 Conn. 333 Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford absolute gift to OLM, rather than an endowment that resulted in a charitable trust, and that the special interest exception did not apply when, as in the present case, the charitable gift is unencumbered by specific restrictions on its use. On the granting of certification, the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court properly upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for lack of standing: 1. The Appellate Court correctly determined that R's bequest to OLM was an outright, unrestricted gift: When a donor specifies that a gift must be used for the donee's ''general uses and purposes,'' the only limitation on the donee's use of the gift is that the donee must use it in furtherance of the duties imposed by the donee's charter or articles of incorporation, and, because this limitation applies to all charitable gifts, regardless of whether it is expressly included in the instrument conferring the gift, the ''general uses and purposes'' language in R's bequest to OLM evinced an intent that it was unrestricted rather than restricted. Moreover, the plaintiffs could not prevail on their claim that R's gift to OLM was restricted on the ground that R specified in his will that, if OLM became incapable of possessing or using the gift, the unspent portion should go to OLM's ''successor,'' as that claim was based on allegations that R's will evinced an intent that M Co., as the entity with the mission that most closely approximates the mission of OLM, should be the cy pres beneficiary of the gift to OLM, rather than on any allegation that M Co. was OLM's successor corporation in the legal sense, and the plaintiffs' claim was inadequately briefed insofar as the plaintiffs did not refer to the cy pres doctrine in their briefs or cite to any authority for the proposition that proof of such intent means that there is an implied restriction on the trust or gift such that a potential cy pres beneficiary has standing to initiate proceedings to enforce the donor's intent. 2. The Appellate Court correctly determined that, under the specific facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring an action to enforce R's unrestricted bequest to OLM under the special interest exception to the rule that the state attorney general has exclusive authority to enforce the terms of a charitable gift: When a donor has made a gift to a charitable organization that is unrestricted by any contractual terms or qualifications, the donee organi- zation is the sole beneficiary of the gift, and the only limitation on its use is that the organization must use it in furtherance of the duties imposed on it by its charter or articles of incorporation, and this court was not aware of any case in which a court had held that the potential beneficiaries of a charitable organization have standing to bring an action to compel the organization to use an unrestricted gift in a specific manner. Moreover, even if there were rare instances in which the beneficiary of a charitable organization could be found to have a special interest suffi- 346 Conn. 333 MARCH, 2023 335 Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford cient to confer standing to bring an action to force the organization to use an unrestricted gift in a specific manner, this was not such an instance, as students enrolled in educational institutions constitute a constantly fluctuating group, and concluding that a particular student or group of students has standing to bring an action to enforce the terms of a trust created to benefit the institution would undermine the primary purpose behind the rule that the state attorney general has exclusive standing to bring such an action, which is to limit the number of persons who have standing to initiate litigation. Argued November 21, 2022—officially released March 14, 2023"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10660873/in-the-matter-of-the-richard-e-howard-trust/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Richard E. Howard Trust.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10660873,"court":"Massachusetts Appeals Court","court_citation_string":"Mass. App. Ct.","court_id":"massappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-08-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23-P-889","docket_id":71201215,"judge":"Massing, Henry, & Grant","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-08-26T15:11:27.688565Z","date_created":"2025-08-26T15:11:27.580162Z","score":{"bm25":25.240578}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1976842,2041273,2079445,2118210,2133132,2134116,2179151,2190747,2221013,2231166,2242078,4098248,6414967,6425421,6425976,6432335,6434621,6443655,6445973,6446206,6446313,6447933,6449305,6451257,6452083,6452089,6453524,6453633,6463831,9737235],"download_url":"https://www.socialaw.com/services/slip-opinions/slip-opinion-details/in-the-matter-of-the-richard-e.-howard-trust.-1","id":11127460,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/08/26/in_the_matter_of_the_richard_e._howard_trust..html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T18:03:32.288236Z","date_created":"2025-08-26T15:11:27.602132Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"70a03f5bea27ecbd432e997bfceeb1d60a87d315","snippet":"\n\t\t    \n       APPEALS COURT \n      \n      IN THE MATTER OF THE RICHARD E. HOWARD TRUST.[1]\n\n\n        \n            Docket:\n            23-P-889\n        \n        \n            Dates:\n            October 2, 2024 – August 26, 2025\n        \n            \n            Present:\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11127460],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5094337/in-re-william-r-zutavern-revocable-trust/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re William R. Zutavern Revocable Trust","caseNameFull":"","citation":["961 N.W.2d 807","309 Neb. 542"],"citeCount":13,"cluster_id":5094337,"court":"Nebraska Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Neb.","court_id":"neb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-06-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S-20-455","docket_id":60391977,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:12:09.058708Z","date_created":"2021-09-17T13:11:53.776797Z","score":{"bm25":23.671492}},"neutralCite":"309 Neb. 542","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[906344,1350047,1801913,1847774,1915761,2164913,2760240,2782871,3217228,4115594,4190473,4293183,4297976,4382571,4532896,4536116,4544017,4551469,4657758,4684870,5114662,9535507,9686076],"download_url":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00007929PUB","id":4911722,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/06/25/in_re_william_r._zutavern_revocable_trust_24.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T12:37:57.395416Z","date_created":"2021-09-17T13:11:53.779835Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2765271809fe6975e5dd4cf9d5e99e7632ff24d7","snippet":"Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library\nwww.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/\n09/17/2021 08:11 AM CDT\n\n\n\n\n                                                      - 542 -\n                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets\n                                        309 Nebraska Reports\n                               IN RE WILLIAM R. ZUTAVERN REVOCABLE TRUST\n                                             Cite as 309 Neb. 542\n\n\n\n\n                           In re William R. Zutavern Revocable T","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4911722],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4537805/in-re-the-trust-fbo-samuel-frances-dupont-under-trust-agreement-dated/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN RE: THE TRUST FBO SAMUEL FRANCES duPONT UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 4, 1936 (POWER OF APPOINTMENT TRUST)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4537805,"court":"Court of Chancery of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del. Ch.","court_id":"delch","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-09-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C.A. No. 12904-MG","docket_id":7928862,"judge":"Griffin M.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:12:50.650990Z","date_created":"2018-09-25T16:08:10.105027Z","score":{"bm25":23.36193}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[105728,118001,1437388,1445404,1526754,1545523,1559994,1874847,1897295,1909212,1925932,1929987,1956917,1977097,2051755,2156092,2198154,2273949,2293887,2299215,2323193,2338288,2346108,2383138,2570630,3484528],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=278840","id":4315058,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/09/25/in_re_the_trust_fbo_samuel_frances_dupont_under_trust_agreement_dated.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:27:01.662783Z","date_created":"2018-09-25T16:08:10.113597Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5b217f5807bd3e2807fe3f49a020b3eff70a7648","snippet":"    IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\nIN RE: THE TRUST FBO SAMUEL                    )     C.A. No. 12904-MG\nFRANCES duPONT UNDER TRUST                     )\nAGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 4, 1936                 )\n(POWER OF APPOINTMENT TRUST)                   )\n                                               )\n\n\n\n\n                            MASTER’S REPORT\n\n                       Date Submitted: July 31, 2018\n                       Draft Report:\n                       Final Report: Se","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4315058],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10316167/trust-est-under-agreement-of-sarah-mellon-scaife/","attorney":"","caseName":"Trust Est. Under Agreement of Sarah Mellon Scaife","caseNameFull":"","citation":["276 A.3d 776","2022 Pa. Super. 93"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":10316167,"court":"Superior Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa. Super. Ct.","court_id":"pasuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-05-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"722 WDA 2021","docket_id":63330003,"judge":"Murray, J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-15T18:13:16.945613Z","date_created":"2025-01-17T02:57:43.821149Z","score":{"bm25":22.878855}},"neutralCite":"2022 Pa. Super. 93","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109292,109432,218665,1537506,1884957,2379833,2400771,3029219,4302483,6343059,6388324],"download_url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A06008-22o - 105152508186390264.pdf","id":10782755,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/05/23/trust_est._under_agreement_of_sarah_mellon_scaife_3.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:37:30.872290Z","date_created":"2025-01-17T02:57:43.834296Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bbcc7e1b3fcfb5def1e77d572626a400f9d1b012","snippet":"J-A06008-22\n\n                                   2022 PA Super 93\n\n\n  IN RE: TRUST ESTABLISHED UNDER               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF\n  AGREEMENT OF SARAH MELLON                    :        PENNSYLVANIA\n  SCAIFE, DECEASED DATED MAY 9,                :\n  1963                                         :\n                                               :\n                                               :\n  APPEAL OF: PNC BANK, N.A.                    :\n                                           ","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[109292,109432,218665,797356,1537506,1884957,2301924,2379833,2400771],"download_url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A06008-22o - 105152508186390264.pdf","id":6343059,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/05/23/trust_est._under_agreement_of_sarah_mellon_scaife.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-11T18:44:45.547583Z","date_created":"2022-05-23T17:11:26.350125Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8cb059996abf394390e43c45b36b0e65931ef57c","snippet":"J-A06008-22\n\n                                   2022 PA Super 93\n\n\n    IN RE: TRUST ESTABLISHED UNDER             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF\n    AGREEMENT OF SARAH MELLON                  :        PENNSYLVANIA\n    SCAIFE, DECEASED DATED MAY 9,              :\n    1963                                       :\n                                               :\n                                               :\n    APPEAL OF: PNC BANK, N.A.                  :\n                                           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6343059,10782755],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10317190/trust-under-deed-of-walter-g-appeal-ofgarrisonm/","attorney":"","caseName":"Trust Under Deed of Walter G, Appeal of:Garrison,M","caseNameFull":"","citation":["302 A.3d 129","2023 Pa. Super. 151"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10317190,"court":"Superior Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa. Super. Ct.","court_id":"pasuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-08-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1429 EDA 2020","docket_id":67674239,"judge":"Bender, P.J.E.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-15T18:13:16.918838Z","date_created":"2025-01-18T04:17:39.999084Z","score":{"bm25":22.28874}},"neutralCite":"2023 Pa. Super. 151","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8224,"cites":[1965155,1976187,1984241,2392090,2400771,2832080,3192825,4381932,4962228,4963446,9554342,10782052],"download_url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A13008-21o - 105630159234956762.pdf","id":10783778,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/08/08/trust_under_deed_of_walter_g_appeal_ofgarrisonm_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:01:41.883036Z","date_created":"2025-01-18T04:17:40.014261Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"122676996da4682e98e821e0545227b132bd3ae5","snippet":"J-A13008-21\n\n                          2023 PA Super 151\n\n\n\n TRUST UNDER DEED OF WALTER R.       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF\n GARRISON                            :        PENNSYLVANIA\n                                     :\n                                     :\n APPEAL OF: MARK R. GARRISON,        :\n CHRISTOPHER GARRISON, LINDSEY       :\n GARRISON, LIZA GARRISON, AND        :\n BRITTANY GARRISON                   :\n                                     :   No. 1429 EDA 2020\n\n               Appeal","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":8224,"cites":[1965155,1976187,1984241,2392090,2400771,2832080,3192825,4381932,4962228,4963446],"download_url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A13008-21o - 105630159234956762.pdf","id":9554342,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/08/08/trust_under_deed_of_walter_g_appeal_ofgarrisonm.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T00:00:28.581062Z","date_created":"2023-08-08T18:11:21.990587Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3c33425fa00374236225a32a7b134509e6da3adb","snippet":"J-A13008-21\n\n                          2023 PA Super 151\n\n\n\n TRUST UNDER DEED OF WALTER R.       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF\n GARRISON                            :        PENNSYLVANIA\n                                     :\n                                     :\n APPEAL OF: MARK R. GARRISON,        :\n CHRISTOPHER GARRISON, LINDSEY       :\n GARRISON, LIZA GARRISON, AND        :\n BRITTANY GARRISON                   :\n                                     :   No. 1429 EDA 2020\n\n               Appeal","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9554342,10783778],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4740638/buckley-family-trust-v-charles-patrick-mccleary/","attorney":"","caseName":"Buckley Family Trust v. Charles Patrick McCleary","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4740638,"court":"Court of Chancery of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del. Ch.","court_id":"delch","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-03-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C.A. No. 2018-0903-AGB","docket_id":17027508,"judge":"Bouchard C.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:11:42.672664Z","date_created":"2020-03-31T15:05:24.216695Z","score":{"bm25":21.85944}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1479784,1491210,1491689,1920301,1955244,1971696,2095494,2192279,2206496,2209546,2308645,2360315,2370284,2379496,2381868,2391836,2393941,2399351,2403162],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=303630","id":4520985,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/03/31/buckley_family_trust_v._charles_patrick_mccleary.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:49:49.176129Z","date_created":"2020-03-31T15:05:24.224766Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"249ffab8ff950873ab222e66b7f1f9cf8dd60547","snippet":"   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\nBUCKLEY FAMILY TRUST,                     )\n                                          )\n            Plaintiff,                    )\n                                          )\n      v.                                  )     C.A. No. 2018-0903-AGB\n                                          )\nCHARLES PATRICK MCCLEARY,                 )\nJAMES MCCLEARY, JOHN                      )\nMCCLEARY, MARGARET                        )\nMCCLEARY STURGES, and S","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4520985],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5147236/in-re-mary-r-latimer-trust/","attorney":"Norris P. Wright, Gordon, Fournaris & Mammarella, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Attorney for Petitioner Wilmington and Brandywine Cemetery., Harold W.T. Purnell, II, Archer & Greiner, P.C., Georgetown, Delaware; Attorney for Petitioner PNC Bank, N.A.","caseName":"In re Mary R. Latimer Trust","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the MARY R. LATIMER TRUST u/a/d 12/3/1924","citation":["78 A.3d 875","2013 Del. Ch. LEXIS 212","2013 WL 5345489"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":5147236,"court":"Court of Chancery of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del. Ch.","court_id":"delch","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-08-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C.M. No. 17254-N-VCL","docket_id":60461085,"judge":"Laster","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:55:31.553867Z","date_created":"2021-09-24T16:26:13.760939Z","score":{"bm25":21.621172}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4968014,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T22:17:47.007080Z","date_created":"2021-09-24T16:26:13.777808Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nLASTER, V.C.\nThe Wilmington and Brandywine Cemetery (the “Cemetery”) and PNC Bank, N.A. (the “Trustee”) petitioned to modify a trust established for the maintenance of two burial lots (the “Trust”). Contending that the Trust has a charitable purpose, they relied on the common law doctrine of cy pres, Delaware’s statutory codification of the cy pres doctrine, and the common law doctrine of deviatio","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4968014],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2477336/iowa-right-to-life-committee-inc-v-smithson/","attorney":"Adam C. Gregg, Brian P. Rickert, Sean P. Moore, Brown Winick Graves Gross Baskerville & Schoenebaum PLC, Des Moines, IA, James Bopp, Jr., Jared Haynie, Joseph E. La Rue, Kaylan L. Phillips, Richard E. Coleson, Bopp Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, for Plaintiff., Jeffrey S. Thompson, Attorney General of Iowa, Michael Bernard Orneara, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.","caseName":"Iowa Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Smithson","caseNameFull":"IOWA RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., Plaintiff, v. W. Charles SMITHSON, in His Official Capacity as Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Executive Director; James Albert, John Walsh, Patricia Harper, Gerald Sullivan, Saima Zafar, and Carole Tillotson, in Their Official Capacities as Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Members; And John Sarcone, in His Official Capacity as Polk County Attorney, Defendants","citation":["750 F. Supp. 2d 1020","2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119741","2010 WL 4277715"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":2477336,"court":"District Court, S.D. Iowa","court_citation_string":"S.D. Iowa","court_id":"iasd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-10-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"4:10-cv-00416","docket_id":146561,"judge":"Robert W. Pratt","lexisCite":"2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119741","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:02:39.523665Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T07:00:41.099654Z","score":{"bm25":20.426907}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2616,"cites":[749,1741,105889,108597,109314,109380,109836,110099,110665,111370,111782,111985,112315,112348,112398,112747,117869,117965,118335,118427,130151,131149,134752,145630,145684,150472,150541,197054,384642,386938,398091,403881,491735,520646,673828,677807,726634,740441,752368,755211,755213,765694,766862,766952,776299,781323,781328,792043,792335,795206,1025593,1189321,1208425,1263994,1300965,1449018,2329402,2472742,2518629,2540854],"download_url":null,"id":2477336,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:04:14.508236Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:48:51.950590Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3a128ddabf7f08e29930185690fe004d6a020dea","snippet":"\n750 F.Supp.2d 1020 (2010)\nIOWA RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., Plaintiff,\nv.\nW. Charles SMITHSON, in his official capacity as Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Executive Director; James Albert, John Walsh, Patricia Harper, Gerald Sullivan, Saima Zafar, and Carole Tillotson, in their official capacities as Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Members; and John Sarcone, in his official capacity as Polk County Attorney, Defendants.<","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2477336],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3036695/alaska-right-to-life-v-miles/","attorney":"","caseName":"Alaska Right to Life v. Miles","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":3036695,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","court_citation_string":"9th Cir.","court_id":"ca9","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2006-03-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"04-35599","docket_id":2894121,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T17:03:39.498729Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T23:20:38.494076Z","score":{"bm25":19.985012}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109380,111782,112398,117921,131149,480629,780837,781948,783034,786531,787281,1133632,2341111,2576413],"download_url":"http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2006/03/21/0435599.pdf","id":3036695,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2006/03/21/alaska_right_to_life_v._miles.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T02:18:39.343837Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T22:54:47.386647Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4d63126529a41b5f3892c27e1818e03eaf1b7b96","snippet":"                 FOR PUBLICATION\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n      FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nALASKA RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE,       \n               Plaintiff-Appellant,\n                                           No. 04-35599\n               v.\n                                             D.C. No.\nBROOKE MILES; ANDREA JACOBSON;           CV-02-00274-A-\nLARRY WOOD; MARK HANDLEY;                      RRB\nJOHN DAPCEVICH; SHEILA\n                                            OPINION\nGALLAGHAER,\n       ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3036695],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Prisoner","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4452825/re-trust-under-deed-of-d-kulig-apl-of-budke-c/","attorney":"Adam T. Gusdorff, Esq., Margaret E.W.Sager, Esq., Heckscher Teillon Terrill & Sager, P.C., John T. Stinson Jr., Esq., for Carrie C. Budke and James H. Kulig, Appellant., Richard Dáñese Jr., Esq., Stuckert and Yates, Jessica L. VanderKam, Esq., for Mary Jo Kulig, Appellee., Gerald E. Darling, Esq., Tara Hagopian Zane, Esq., Archer & Greiner, P.C., for Pasquale Hamel, Appellee.","caseName":"Re: Trust Under Deed of D. Kulig Apl of Budke, C.","caseNameFull":"In RE: TRUST UNDER DEED OF DAVID P. KULIG DATED JANUARY 12, 2001. Appeal Of: Carrie C. Budke and James H. Kulig","citation":["175 A.3d 222"],"citeCount":17,"cluster_id":4452825,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-12-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"97 MAP 2016","docket_id":6244042,"judge":"Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:49:19.849088Z","date_created":"2017-12-19T14:21:49.284388Z","score":{"bm25":18.967138}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1523437,1993753],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Majority Opinion  ReversedRemanded  10336093130967143.pdf","id":4230078,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/12/19/re_trust_under_deed_of_d._kulig_apl_of_budke_c..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:27:48.451024Z","date_created":"2017-12-19T14:21:49.291305Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4f6317d0aab1abf6cc01585614484a4a94537b0d","snippet":"                                   [J-48-2017]\n                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n                                MIDDLE DISTRICT\n\n    SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.\n\n\nIN RE: TRUST UNDER DEED OF DAVID               :   No. 97 MAP 2016\nP. KULIG DATED JANUARY 12, 2001                :\n                                               :   Appeal from the Order of the Superior\n                                               :   Court at No. 2891 EDA","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9879600,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:56:32.936466Z","date_created":"2023-09-27T18:28:14.894923Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":" OPINION JUSTICE WECHT This Commonwealth has a “long existing public policy ... to protect the rights of [a surviving spouse]” against total disinheritance by his or her deceased spouse. In re Pengelly’s Estate, 374 Pa. 358, 97 A.2d 844, 849 (1953).1 For centuries, the common law prevented such disinheritances under.the doctrine ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4230078,9879600,9879601],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/145706/federal-election-commission-v-wisconsin-right-to-life-inc/","attorney":"Solicitor General Clement argued the cause for appellant in No. 06-969. With him on the briefs were Deputy Solicitor General Garre, Malcolm L. Stewart, Richard B. Bader, David Kolker, Harry J. Summers, and Kevin Deeley. Seth P. Waxman argued the cause for appellants in No. 06-970. With him on the briefs were Randolph D. Moss, Danielle Spinelli, Roger M. Witten, Donald J. Simon, Scott L. Nelson, Trevor Potter, J. Gerald Hebert, Paul S. Ryan, Charles G. Curtis, Jr., Fred Wertheimer, Alan B. Morrison, and Bradley S. Phillips., James Bopp, Jr., argued the cause for appellee in both cases. With him on the brief were Richard E. Coleson, Jeffrey P. Gallant, Raeanna S. Moore, and M. Miller Baker.†","caseName":"Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.","citation":["168 L. Ed. 2d 329","127 S. Ct. 2652","551 U.S. 449","2007 U.S. LEXIS 8515"],"citeCount":668,"cluster_id":145706,"court":"Supreme Court of the United States","court_citation_string":"SCOTUS","court_id":"scotus","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-06-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"06-969","docket_id":2102790,"judge":"Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Auto, Alito, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer","lexisCite":"2007 U.S. LEXIS 8515","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T18:41:28.284058Z","date_created":"2016-01-27T18:59:43.524803Z","score":{"bm25":18.34194}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9435021,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:36:04.594849Z","date_created":"2023-08-03T00:01:20.858271Z"},"ordering_key":4,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJustice Souter,\nwith whom Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.\nThe significance and effect of today’s judgment, from which I respectfully dissent, turn on three things: the demand for campaign money in huge amounts from large contributors, whose power has produced a cynical electorate; the congressional recognition of the ensuing threat to democratic integrity as reflected in a","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[97365,102601,103292,103347,103373,103531,103870,104061,104588,105465,106365,106447,106514,106761,107187,107252,107734,107901,108350,108360,108541,108586,108838,108990,108993,109088,109201,109338,109380,109499,109836,109895,110311,110478,110660,110819,110916,111175,111308,111555,111596,111782,111921,112277,112291,112389,112398,112432,112484,112643,112755,112786,112906,117900,117947,117960,118011,118023,118176,118380,118496,130149,130151,131149,136988,145686,145707,2341111,2403174],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-969.pdf","id":145706,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2007/06/25/Federal_Election_Commn_v._Wisconsin_Right_to_Life_Inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T08:38:39.045173Z","date_created":"2010-05-06T00:06:47Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ec8726e73a2f4a6f0501b6bb38055d4b1dbe8adb","snippet":"\n127 S.Ct. 2652 (2007)\nFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Appellant,\nv.\nWISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.\nSenator John McCain, et al., Appellants,\nv.\nWisconsin Right to Life, Inc.\nNos. 06-969, 06-970.\nSupreme Court of United States.\nArgued April 25, 2007.\nDecided June 25, 2007.\n*2658 Paul D. Clement, Solicitor G","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"2006-069","sibling_ids":[145706,9435018,9435019,9435020,9435021],"source":"LCU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2428007/colorado-right-to-life-committee-inc-v-davidson/","attorney":"Eric Christian Bohnet, Foley & Pool, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, James Bopp, Jr., Bopp, Coelson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, for Plaintiff., Maurice G. Knaizer, Monica Marie Marquez, Colorado Attorney General’s Office-Depart. of Law, Denver, CO, for Defendant.","caseName":"Colorado Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Davidson","caseNameFull":"COLORADO RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Donetta DAVIDSON, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of State, Defendant","citation":["395 F. Supp. 2d 1001","2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39278","2005 WL 2450157"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":2428007,"court":"District Court, D. Colorado","court_citation_string":"D. Colo.","court_id":"cod","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2005-09-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"03-cv-1454-WDM-PAC","docket_id":2300336,"judge":"Miller","lexisCite":"2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39278","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:36:23.326744Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:14:44.432142Z","score":{"bm25":18.122095}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2260,"cites":[108598,108858,109380,111480,111719,111782,111985,112114,117869,118102,118240,118299,118385,130149,130151,131149,157150,161611,165406,165582,185417,442046,677807,703885,758868,762034,771682,784909,787281],"download_url":null,"id":2428007,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:31:58.777342Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:32:49.394545Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"01aaf3db9fb69160758b05f94f396150f1c18759","snippet":"\n395 F.Supp.2d 1001 (2005)\nCOLORADO RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., Plaintiff,\nv.\nDonetta DAVIDSON, in her official capacity as Secretary of State, Defendant.\nNo. 03-cv-1454-WDM-PAC.\nUnited States District Court, D. Colorado.\nSeptember 30, 2005.\n*1002 *1003 *1004","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2428007],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9479419/christopher-haymond-individually-and-as-trustee-of-the-testamentary-trust/","attorney":"","caseName":"Christopher Haymond, Individually and as Trustee of the Testamentary Trust Created by the Last Will and Testament of Irene Nutter Haymond v. Stephanie Haymond and David Haymond","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9479419,"court":"West Virginia Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"W. Va.","court_id":"wva","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-621","docket_id":68292607,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:26:22.435331Z","date_created":"2024-02-28T21:18:30.719233Z","score":{"bm25":17.930729}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1267259,1305536,1325256,1333967,4004520,6592177,6921490,8177030,8179343],"download_url":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2024-02/22-621-walker-p.pdf","id":9946032,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/02/28/christopher_haymond_individually_and_as_trustee_of_the_testamentary_trust.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:30:18.569099Z","date_created":"2024-02-28T21:18:30.730876Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"24ae538bfc5026a1f08f7fb842456d87af6a41dc","snippet":"            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA\n\n                                                                               FILED\n                                January 2024 Term                  February 28, 2024\n                                                                           released at 3:00 p.m.\n                                                                      C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK\n                                                                     SUPREME C","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9946032],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Certified Question","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8525886/kohut-v-lois-richard-lewiston-living-trust-in-re-lewiston/","attorney":"Charles D. Bullock, Stevenson & Bullock, P.L.C., Elliot G. Crowder, Michael A. Stevenson, Southfield, MI, Patrick Anthony Foley, Dearborn, MI, for Debtor., Ryan D. Heilman, Anthony J. Kochis, Scott A. Wolfson, Wolfson Bolton PLLC, Troy, MI, Kelley Callará, Sean M. Cowley, United States Trustee, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff., Tracy M. Clark, Southfield, MI, for Defendants.","caseName":"Kohut v. Lois & Richard Lewiston Living Trust (In re Lewiston)","caseNameFull":"IN RE: Richard Martin LEWISTON, Debtor. Gene R. Kohut, Chapter 7 Trustee, of the bankruptcy estate of Richard Martin Lewiston v. Lois and Richard Lewiston Living Trust, dated September 10, 1986, Richard M. Lewiston, individually and in his capacity as trustee of the Lois and Richard Lewiston Living Trust, dated September 10, 1986, and Lois C. Lewiston, individually and in her capacity as trustee of the Lois and Richard Lewiston Living Trust, dated September 10, 1986","citation":["532 B.R. 36","2015 Bankr. LEXIS 2074"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":8525886,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan","court_citation_string":"Bankr. E.D. Mich.","court_id":"mieb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-06-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 12-58599; Adversary Proceeding No. 14-5115-PJS","docket_id":65787566,"judge":"Shefferly","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:50:03.332055Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:43:33.521960Z","score":{"bm25":17.885963}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8498369,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T17:05:28.513671Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:43:33.529539Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nOpinion Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment And Denying Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment\n\nPhillip J. Shefferly, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\nIntroduction\n\nThis matter is before the Court on a complaint filed by a Chapter 7 trustee that seeks a declaratory judgment holding that the interest of a Chapter 7 debtor in a trust is property of his bankruptcy","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8498369],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/173907/bessemer-trust-co-na-v-branin/","attorney":"Donald I. Strauber, Chadbourne & Parke LLP (Gretchen N. Werwaiss, Marjory T. Herold, and Bernadette K. Galiano, of counsel), New York, N.Y., for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant., Louis P. DiLorenzo, Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC (Michael I. Bernstein and Michael P. Collins, of counsel), New York, N.Y., for Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.","caseName":"Bessemer Trust Co., N.A. v. Branin","caseNameFull":"BESSEMER TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Francis S. BRANIN, Jr., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee","citation":["618 F.3d 76","2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17662","2010 WL 3307458"],"citeCount":49,"cluster_id":173907,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-08-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Docket 08-2462-cv(L), 08-2677-cv(XAP)","docket_id":1921971,"judge":"McLaughlin, Calabresi, Sack","lexisCite":"2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17662","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T18:52:04.108781Z","date_created":"2015-03-17T15:05:25.778827Z","score":{"bm25":17.864933}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2740,111719,754643,779792,780357,1234896,1241183,1357803,1652189,1686877,2474396,2583750,3601027,3618223,5533567,5850579,5876736,5941225,6933714,6938287,6951710,6991401,8408398,8411452],"download_url":"http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0b1a781c-13e5-46cf-8882-717483509d0f/1/doc/08-2462-cv_opn.pdf","id":173907,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2010/08/24/Bessemer_Trust_Company_N.A._v._Branin.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T11:39:48.375019Z","date_created":"2010-08-24T14:05:27Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7382dd3798e922b54af990a1b1ade531a858ca50","snippet":"\n618 F.3d 76 (2010)\nBESSEMER TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,\nv.\nFrancis S. BRANIN, Jr., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.\nDocket Nos. 08-2462-cv(L), 08-2677-cv(XAP).\nUnited States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.\nArgued: June 3, 2009.\nQuestion Certified: August 24, 2010.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[506,2167,2823],"panel_names":["Guido Calabresi","Joseph Michael McLaughlin","Robert David Sack"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[173907],"source":"LCU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}