{"count":37595,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xNi44NTI0Mjgmcz05NDQzMjk5JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMTAtMDEmcD0y&q=ESSENTIAL+TERMS+REQUISITES+OF+COMPLETE+CONTRACT&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9396020/macnaughton-v-young-living-essential-oils-lc/","attorney":"","caseName":"MacNaughton v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC","caseNameFull":"","citation":["67 F.4th 89"],"citeCount":59,"cluster_id":9396020,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-05-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-0344","docket_id":67310035,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:53:18.978444Z","date_created":"2023-05-02T15:00:18.104013Z","score":{"bm25":43.918694}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[222566,463739,822875,854300,866709,903469,1274444,2086398,2434496,2682476,2950925,3206604,4162275,4410681,5425537,5542996,5731656,6053674,6325125,6929280,6937012,8122146,8710005,9435068],"download_url":"http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e5923a80-cd9d-49db-8845-5463ce62ed13/1/doc/22-344_opn.pdf","id":9391496,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/05/02/macnaughton_v._young_living_essential_oils_lc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T18:30:38.431913Z","date_created":"2023-05-02T15:00:18.161798Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d453f6c209d420e7299a5840f173f3df36ba83de","snippet":"     22-0344\n     MacNaughton v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC\n\n\n 1                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n\n 2                                        FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n 3\n 4\n 5                                                August Term 2022\n 6\n 7                                          Argued: October 17, 2022\n 8                                           Decided: May 2, 2023\n 9\n10                                                    No. 22-0344\n11\n12\n13              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9391496],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2804061/morphotrust-usa-inc-v-district-of-columbia-contract-appeals-board/","attorney":"Jessica Ring Amunson, with whom Daniel E. Chudd and Damien C. Specht, Washington, DC, were on the brief, for appellant., James C. McKay, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, with whom Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General for the District of Columbia at the time the brief was filed, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief, for appellee.","caseName":"MorphoTrust USA, Inc. v. District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board","caseNameFull":"MORPHOTRUST USA, INC., Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD, Appellee","citation":["115 A.3d 571","2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 251","2015 WL 2458192"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2804061,"court":"District of Columbia Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"D.C.","court_id":"dc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-05-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"13-CV-1002","docket_id":2660283,"judge":"Blackburne-Rigsby, Easterly, Farrell","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:52:18.616068Z","date_created":"2015-05-28T15:05:19.637578Z","score":{"bm25":33.810596}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108283,109606,110774,111221,112093,112256,661829,712244,769216,771944,1361921,1436089,1462267,1511790,1547913,1548862,1925489,1979789,1985281,2155367,2165031,2176844,2260533,2263053,2285878,2299178,2318547,2323278,2336486,4957953],"download_url":"http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/13-CV-1002.pdf","id":2804061,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/05/28/morphotrust_usa_inc._v._district_of_columbia_contract_appeals_board.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T23:27:40.018347Z","date_created":"2015-05-28T14:10:26.732623Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7958644792d6a55743ddebaed049c6242edfe122","snippet":"Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the\nAtlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the\nCourt of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound\nvolumes go to press.\n\n             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                                No. 13-CV-1002\n\n                     MORPHOTRUST USA, INC., APPELLANT,\n\n                                       V.\n\n         DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONTRACT APPEALS","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9807716,9807717,9807718,2804061],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8790770/in-re-dial-complete-marketing-sales-practices-litigation/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Dial Complete Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation","caseNameFull":"IN RE: DIAL COMPLETE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION","citation":["312 F.R.D. 36","2015 DNH 222","93 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 556","2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164346","2015 WL 8346122"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":8790770,"court":"District Court, D. New Hampshire","court_citation_string":"D.N.H.","court_id":"nhd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-12-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 11-md-2263-SM","docket_id":66056885,"judge":"McAuliffe","lexisCite":"2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164346","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:36:22.816326Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T12:57:32.644434Z","score":{"bm25":33.63984}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8774722,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T04:20:06.997561Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T12:57:32.658616Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n*46ORDER\nSteven J. McAuliffe, United States District Judge\nThis consolidated, multi-district litigation is brought by consumers in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated consumers in those states. Plaintiffs say that defendant, The Dial Corporation (“Dial”), cont","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8774722],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10532977/in-the-matter-of-protest-filed-by-el-sol-contracting-and-construction/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp., Contract T100.638","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10532977,"court":"Supreme Court of New Jersey","court_citation_string":"N.J.","court_id":"nj","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-05-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-33-24","docket_id":70131569,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-05-06T14:10:23.311369Z","date_created":"2025-05-06T14:10:23.262679Z","score":{"bm25":33.199577}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1436756,1469152,1549224,1970359,2111493,2165073,2264556,2265785,2282348,2285409,2646196,2731187,7323911,8228344,9763154,9763222,9860350],"download_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_33_24.pdf","id":10999565,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/05/in_the_matter_of_protest_filed_by_el_sol_contracting_and_construction_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T20:09:36.489262Z","date_created":"2025-05-06T14:10:23.265086Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7b5e02825782bf556ee52c38424bab5257fd66ba","snippet":"                                      SYLLABUS\n\nThis syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office\nof the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor\napproved by the Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion.\n\n   In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp.,\n                      Contract T100.638 (A-33-24) (090076)\n\nArgued March 31, 2025 -- Decided May 5, 2025\n\nHOFFMAN, J., writing for t","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10999565],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10514607/in-the-matter-of-protest-filed-by-el-sol-contracting-and-construction/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp., Contract T100.638","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10514607,"court":"Supreme Court of New Jersey","court_citation_string":"N.J.","court_id":"nj","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-05-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-33-24","docket_id":70131569,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-05-05T14:08:48.634940Z","date_created":"2025-05-05T14:08:48.574472Z","score":{"bm25":32.860725}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1436756,1469152,1549224,1970359,2111493,2165073,2264556,2265785,2282348,2285409,2646196,2731187,7323911,8228344,9763154,9763222,9860350],"download_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a_33_24.pdf","id":10981195,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/05/in_the_matter_of_protest_filed_by_el_sol_contracting_and_construction.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T03:40:39.300666Z","date_created":"2025-05-05T14:08:48.577778Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ea82f6a0d40e9999398570ce088a7ee906d7b7bb","snippet":"                                      SYLLABUS\n\nThis syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office\nof the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor\napproved by the Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion.\n\n   In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp.,\n                      Contract T100.638 (A-33-24) (090076)\n\nArgued March 31, 2025 -- Decided May 5, 2025\n\nHOFFMAN, J., writing for t","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10981195],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4570608/in-re-standard-jury-instructions-in-contract-and-business-cases-2018/","attorney":"Honorable Paul Lee Huey, Chair, Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases, Tampa, Florida; and Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, and Mikalla Andies Davis, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner","caseName":"In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases-2018 Report.","caseNameFull":"In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases - 2018 Report","citation":["260 So. 3d 87"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4570608,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-12-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC18-867","docket_id":8347875,"judge":"Per Curiam","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:22:36.459191Z","date_created":"2018-12-06T16:07:33.473820Z","score":{"bm25":29.718374}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[73557,1088437,1092288,1092780,1100384,1100623,1101232,1102753,1102846,1109856,1131365,1143331,1553627,1585985,1588832,1589404,1614366,1623372,1646494,1665098,1665946,1680995,1688236,1692570,1694592,1699631,1714226,1715450,1715913,1719210,1723687,1727671,1730924,1737334,1742702,1747468,1760691,1770814,1779754,1785478,1790452,1793038,1811303,1817282,1821634,1821936,1821964,1826213,1832340,1840040,1843615,1848315,1850826,1861669,1891982,1903447,1942469,1954173,2534081],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc18-867.pdf","id":4347861,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/12/06/in_re_standard_jury_instructions_in_contract_and_business_cases_-_2018.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:49:51.576535Z","date_created":"2018-12-06T16:07:33.478453Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c7ebffbb9f026ebfac0ac7f0b1d72dcc9be8fb6f","snippet":"\n\n\n  PER CURIAM.\n \n\n  The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury instructions and asks that the Court authorize the amended standard instructions. We have jurisdiction.\n  \n   See\n  \n  art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.\n \n\n  The Committee filed its report in this case pro","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4347861],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6779017/brooks-range-contract-services-inc-v-united-states/","attorney":"Johnathan M. Bailey, San Antonio, TX, for plaintiff., Devin A Wolak, with whom were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, and Ryan M. Majerus, of counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. Leigh Ann Bunetta, Regional Counsel for the General Services Administration, Denver, CO, of counsel., Michael A Gordon, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors. Fran Baskin, Washington, DC, of counsel.","caseName":"Brooks Range Contract Services, Inc. v. United States","caseNameFull":"BROOKS RANGE CONTRACT SERVICES, INC. v. The UNITED STATES of America, and Urban Services Group, Inc., and Meridian Management Corporation, Defendant-Intervenors","citation":["101 Fed. Cl. 699","2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2437","2011 WL 6962751"],"citeCount":40,"cluster_id":6779017,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-12-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 11-700 C","docket_id":63760292,"judge":"Hewitt","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T11:11:49.899415Z","date_created":"2022-07-20T21:03:20.567315Z","score":{"bm25":27.847412}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6662637,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T21:06:04.230074Z","date_created":"2022-07-20T21:03:20.581531Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nOPINION\n\nHEWITT, Chief Judge.\nThis is a post-award bid protest brought by plaintiff Brooks Range Contract Services, Inc. (Brooks Range or plaintiff). Plaintiff challenges the award of a contract for building management services at two federal buildings in Colorado to defendant-interve-nors Urban Services Group, Inc. and Meridian Management Corporation (Urban and Meridian or intervenors). See","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6662637],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4991933/in-re-standard-jury-instructionscontract-business-cases/","attorney":"Honorable Jonathan D. Gerber, Committee Chair, and Manuel Farach, Committee Vice-Chair, West Palm Beach, FL; and Brian F. Spector, Committee Vice-Chair, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.","caseName":"In re Standard Jury Instructions—Contract & Business Cases","caseNameFull":"In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CONTRACT AND BUSINESS CASES","citation":["116 So. 3d 284","2013 WL 2435441"],"citeCount":26,"cluster_id":4991933,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-06-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC12-1931","docket_id":60232345,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:16:12.685062Z","date_created":"2021-08-21T01:59:56.902084Z","score":{"bm25":26.7516}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4802254,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:50:25.237884Z","date_created":"2021-08-21T01:59:57.032136Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nLEWIS, J.\nThis matter is before the Court upon the report, recommendation and proposal of the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions — Contract and Business Cases and a printed book of instructions prepared by the Committee for use when appropriate in civil cases. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. This Court generally approves the theory and technique of instructing juries with regar","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4802254],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4581397/in-re-standard-jury-instructions-in-contract-and-business-cases-2018/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases - 2018 Report","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4581397,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-01-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC18-867","docket_id":8498543,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:25:29.758669Z","date_created":"2019-01-15T04:06:20.482182Z","score":{"bm25":26.062197}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[73557,1088437,1092288,1092780,1100384,1100623,1101232,1102753,1102846,1109856,1131365,1143331,1553627,1585985,1588832,1589404,1614366,1623372,1646494,1665098,1665946,1680995,1688236,1692570,1694592,1699631,1714226,1715450,1715913,1719210,1723687,1727671,1730924,1737334,1742702,1747468,1760691,1770814,1779754,1785478,1790452,1793038,1811303,1817282,1821634,1821936,1821964,1826213,1832340,1840040,1843615,1848315,1850826,1861669,1891982,1903447,1942469,1954173,2534081],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/413754/4507625/file/sc18-867.pdf","id":4358650,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/01/04/in_re_standard_jury_instructions_in_contract_and_business_cases_-_2018.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:57:16.925546Z","date_created":"2019-01-15T04:06:20.490419Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"538d65e557f3485da9c72b0acf5b10e070c60b42","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                                   ____________\n\n                                   No. SC18-867\n                                   ____________\n\n\n    IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CONTRACT AND\n                BUSINESS CASES—2018 REPORT.\n\n                              December 6, 2018\n                            CORRECTED OPINION\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n      The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Contract\n\nand Business Cases (Committee) has ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4358650],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8775498/in-re-mercedes-benz-tele-aid-contract-litigation/","attorney":"Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, by Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. & Jennifer Gross, Esq., New York, NY, Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilflllan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein, by James E. Cecchi, Esq. & Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq., Roseland, NJ, Girard Gibbs, LLP, by Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. & Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq., San Francisco, CA, Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards, LLP, by Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq., Haddonfield, NJ, Interim Co-Lead and Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs., Bryan Cave, LLP, by Peter W. Herzog III, Esq. & Ketrina G. Bakewell, Esq., St. Louis, MO, Graham Curtin, PA, Thomas R. Curtin, Esq., Kathleen M. Fennelly, Esq., Morristown, NJ, for Defendant,","caseName":"In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litigation","caseNameFull":"In re MERCEDES-BENZ TELE AID CONTRACT LITIGATION","citation":["267 F.R.D. 113","2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23624","2010 WL 931865"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":8775498,"court":"District Court, D. New Jersey","court_citation_string":"D.N.J.","court_id":"njd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-03-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. No. 07-2720 (DRD); MDL No. 1914","docket_id":66041613,"judge":"Debevoise","lexisCite":"2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23624","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:30:04.168137Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T11:58:48.134900Z","score":{"bm25":25.726357}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8759120,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T04:14:56.698858Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T11:58:48.148777Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nOPINION\n\nDEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge.\nThis matter comes before the Court on two motions submitted by Defendant, Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC (“Mercedes”). In the first, Mercedes argues that a recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit requires decertification of the class of plaintiffs 1 created by the Court’s April 24, 2009 Opinion and Order. In the","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8759120],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8771601/in-re-mercedes-benz-tele-aid-contract-litigation/","attorney":"Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, by Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. & Jennifer Gross, Esq., New York, NY, Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecehi, Stewart & Olstein, by James E. Cecchi, Esq. & Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq., Roseland, NJ, Girard Gibbs, LLP, by Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. & Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq., San Francisco, CA, Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards, LLP, by Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq., Haddonfield, NJ, Interim Co-Lead and Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs., Bryan Cave, LLP, by Peter W. Herzog III, Esq. & Ketrina G. Bakewell, Esq., St. Louis, MO, Graham Curtin, PA, Thomas R. Curtin, Esq., Kathleen M. Fennelly, Esq., Morristown, NJ, for Defendant.","caseName":"In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litigation","caseNameFull":"In re MERCEDES-BENZ TELE AID CONTRACT LITIGATION","citation":["257 F.R.D. 46","2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35595","2009 WL 1101241"],"citeCount":46,"cluster_id":8771601,"court":"District Court, D. New Jersey","court_citation_string":"D.N.J.","court_id":"njd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-04-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. No. 07-2720(DRD); MDL No. 1914","docket_id":66037716,"judge":"Debevoise","lexisCite":"2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35595","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:28:47.170176Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T11:43:02.077925Z","score":{"bm25":25.50991}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8755151,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:44:36.867007Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T11:43:02.090188Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nOPINION\n\nDEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge.\nThis matter comes before the Court on a motion by Plaintiffs,1 individuals who purchased model year 2002-2006 automobiles manufactured and marketed by Defendant Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC (“Mercedes”), for certification as a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Mercedes, a Delaware corporation with its principal pl","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8755151],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2433572/in-re-complete-management-inc-securities-litigation/","attorney":"James J. Sabella, Brown and Wood, LLP, New York City, for Defendant Arthur Anderson, LLP., Dennis J. Block, Michelle L. Roth, Cad-walader, Wickersham & Taft, New York City, for Defendants Complete Management, Inc., Steven Rabinovici, Clare A. Cardone and Dennis Shields., Martin E. karlinsky, Camhy Karlinsky & Stein, LLP, New York City, for Defendant National Securities Corp., Clifford Thau, Squadron, Ellenoff, Ples-ent & Sheinfeld, LLP, for Defendant Commonwealth Assoc., Bernard Wincig, Law Offices of Wincig & Wincig, New York City, for Defendant Lawrence W. Shields., Michael D. Braun, Timothy J. Burke, Stull, Stull & Broday, Los Angeles, CA, Jules Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody, New York City, Andrew M. Schatz, Jeffrey S. Nobel, Robert W. Cassot, Shatz & Nobel, P.C., Hartford, CT, Joseph H. Weiss, Weiss & Yourman, New York City, for Plaintiffs.","caseName":"In Re Complete Management Inc. Securities Litigation","caseNameFull":"In Re COMPLETE MANAGEMENT INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION","citation":["153 F. Supp. 2d 314","2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3663","2001 WL 314631"],"citeCount":66,"cluster_id":2433572,"court":"District Court, S.D. New York","court_citation_string":"S.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nysd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2001-03-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"99 Civ. 1454 NRB","docket_id":2306111,"judge":"Buchwald","lexisCite":"2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3663","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:39:40.245575Z","date_created":"2015-10-14T00:23:39.596659Z","score":{"bm25":24.273207}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":450,"cites":[109420,111435,112628,117902,274840,384555,481331,671465,671471,730975,763323,1414282,1447359,1459205,1508351,1582884,1584833,1685446,1971588,2284987,2326031,2336244,2336298,2462764,2497220,2510823,2568877,2569100,2620710,6929209,6929280,6933670,6937581,6985681,6985822,6986071,8727458,8728962,8904569,8974049,8995736,9044326],"download_url":null,"id":2433572,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:36:08.284555Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:34:43.154447Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5cb20ef07cc9e2ebb460b85fd63f00d76932e70d","snippet":"\n153 F.Supp.2d 314 (2001)\nIn re COMPLETE MANAGEMENT INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION\nNo. 99 Civ. 1454 NRB.\nUnited States District Court, S.D. New York.\nMarch 30, 2001.\n*315 *316 *317 James J. Sabella, Brown and Wood, LLP, New York City, for Defendant Arthur Anderson, LLP.","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2433572],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10698853/in-re-dial-complete-marketing/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re: Dial Complete Marketing","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2015 DNH 222"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10698853,"court":"District Court, D. New Hampshire","court_citation_string":"D.N.H.","court_id":"nhd","court_jurisdiction":"FD","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-12-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 11-md-2263-SM","docket_id":66056885,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-09T16:50:39.100265Z","date_created":"2025-10-09T16:50:16.036822Z","score":{"bm25":21.520014}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[26080,78348,198866,200373,203894,204019,213297,218178,612578,692032,726101,766782,806119,811751,856346,1034268,1038030,1090860,1199775,1221373,1235519,1397686,1399452,1439265,1495262,1577528,1612931,1619432,1621634,1623494,1658611,1770868,1775533,1791496,1836392,1998236,2007829,2018501,2135855,2174291,2236545,2244422,2260165,2277039,2286601,2334327,2426591,2462521,2477879,2489505,2546798,2652034,2709369,2720286,2792929,2821042,2972289,3732576,5109989,5115089,6945149,7223385,7230224,7232783,7433600,8129828,8203200,8413292,8700870,8704184,8709793,8726618,8727922,8728564,8735153,8736794,8741765,8746937,8747181,8748603,8756191,8757805,8758512,8758513,8759175,8760934,8762916,8763142,8763162,8763631,8765758,8766739,8767726,8768020,8768520,8768545,8769744,8769778,8771162,8772072,8773353,8774189,8774683,8774722,8937160,8953040,9033688,9042758,9415053,9428812,9433201,9433517,9440371,9441858,9502835,9685293,9690505,9695354,9705814,9729889,9806187,9806910,9810664,9843095],"download_url":"https://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Opinions/15/15NH222.pdf","id":11165441,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/12/08/in_re_dial_complete_marketing.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:40:59.703725Z","date_created":"2025-10-09T16:50:16.104761Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"685fa8e8c8a0b99f094aea177790baa338864968","snippet":"                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n                    DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE\n\n\nIn re: Dial Complete Marketing           Case No. 11-md-2263-SM\nand Sales Practices Litigation           Opinion No. 2015 DNH 222\n\n\n                             O R D E R\n\n\n     This consolidated, multi-district litigation is brought by\n\nconsumers in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana,\n\nMissouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, on behalf of themselves and\n\nsimilarly situated consumers in those st","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11165441],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2305579/contract-materials-processing-inc-v-kataleuna-gmbh-catalysts/","attorney":"Joseph S. Lyons, Law Office of Joseph S. Lyons, Towson, MD, Paul S. Richter, Richter, Miller & Finn PH, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff., Barbara Susan Wahl, Law Office, Washington, DC, Evan Scott Stolove, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin and Kahn PPLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants., Benjamin Sorrells Boyd, Piper Rudnick LLP, Washington, DC, Alice A. Brown, Houston, TX, for Movant.","caseName":"Contract Materials Processing, Inc. v. Kataleuna GmbH Catalysts","caseNameFull":"CONTRACT MATERIALS PROCESSING, INC., Plaintiff, v. KATALEUNA GMBH CATALYSTS, Et Al., Defendants","citation":["222 F. Supp. 2d 733","2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18302","2002 WL 31154950"],"citeCount":18,"cluster_id":2305579,"court":"District Court, D. Maryland","court_citation_string":"D. Maryland","court_id":"mdd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2002-09-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CIV. AMD-98-147","docket_id":2152613,"judge":"Davis","lexisCite":"2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18302","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:29:47.080707Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:17:31.769226Z","score":{"bm25":21.354885}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":808,"cites":[110318,110929,111123,609756,667588,751092,754651,1527691,1954882,1996138,1997226,2075744,2092625,2286678,2299875],"download_url":null,"id":2305579,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:49:00.899673Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:02:04.919978Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"47c97653b19b41fea6a043f61b4d57023375cf2a","snippet":"\n222 F.Supp.2d 733 (2002)\nCONTRACT MATERIALS PROCESSING, INC., Plaintiff,\nv.\nKATALEUNA GMBH CATALYSTS, et al., Defendants.\nNo. CIV. AMD-98-147.\nUnited States District Court, D. Maryland.\nSeptember 19, 2002.\n*734 Joseph S. Lyons, Law Office of Joseph S. Lyons, Towson, MD, Paul S. Richter, Richter, Miller & Finn PH, Washington, ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2305579],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2003974/jp-morgan-chase-bank-na-ex-rel-bank-one-na-v-texas-contract/","attorney":"Breck Harrison, Jackson Walker LLP, Ranjan Satija, Wm. Paul Lawrence II, Lawrence, Arenella, Satija LLP, Austin, TX, for Appellants., C.A. (Joe) Davis, Brown McCarroll, Kendall D. Hamilton, Law Office of Kendall D. Hamilton, Ann Y. Riddel, Law Office of Ann Y. Riddel, Austin, TX, Albert T. Taxis, Meyer Knight & Williams, L.L.P., Paul W. Nimmons Jr., Houston, TX, Craig A. Bernstein, Law Offices of Craig A. Bernstein, Dallas, TX, R. David Fritsche, Law Offices of R. Daived Fritsche, San Antonio, TX, Christopher Stanley, Christopher Stanley & Associates, PC, Georgetown, TX, for Appellees.","caseName":"J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Ex Rel. Bank One, N.A. v. Texas Contract Carpet, Inc.","caseNameFull":"J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Successor by Merger to Bank One, N.A.; And Michael Bobinchuck, Appellants, v. TEXAS CONTRACT CARPET, INC.; Gypsum Floors of Texas, Inc.; And Agape Round Rock Housing, Inc., D/B/A Chandler Creek Apartments, Appellees","citation":["302 S.W.3d 515","2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9443","2009 WL 4725290"],"citeCount":44,"cluster_id":2003974,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Austin","court_id":"txctapp3","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-12-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"03-05-00629-CV","docket_id":1832070,"judge":"Law, Puryear, Henson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T08:09:32.424234Z","date_created":"2016-01-08T13:09:17.699922Z","score":{"bm25":19.283688}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[782100,894501,894590,894692,894744,894849,894910,894940,895131,1353803,1377368,1404975,1439516,1447935,1519282,1523365,1565152,1588122,1620781,1638479,1691097,1728574,1736164,1746268,1750944,1753677,1758492,1768069,1768247,1768372,1774248,1800719,1987708,1990496,2004269,2105618,2105747,2105795,2127131,2362457,2383367,2388778,2449384,2454771,2457085,2461343,2461826,2461896,2462739,2463940],"download_url":null,"id":2003974,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T08:09:32.421440Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:01:30.368305Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0f1f2068a1311f2ef5e15ec25a9f9a5f9023142a","snippet":"\n302 S.W.3d 515 (2009)\nJ.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., successor by merger to Bank One, N.A.; and Michael Bobinchuck, Appellants,\nv.\nTEXAS CONTRACT CARPET, INC.; Gypsum Floors of Texas, Inc.; and Agape Round Rock Housing, Inc., d/b/a Chandler Creek Apartments, Appellees.\nNo. 03-05-00629-CV.\nCourt of Appeals of Texas, Austin.\nDecember 11, 2009.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[8336,8371],"panel_names":["Diane Henson","David Puryear"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2003974],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6068985/complete-messenger-trucking-corp-v-merrill-lynch-money-markets-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Complete Messenger & Trucking Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Money Markets, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Complete Messenger & Trucking Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Money Markets, Inc.","citation":["169 A.D.2d 609","565 N.Y.S.2d 794","1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 731"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":6068985,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1991-01-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62429085,"judge":"Kassal, Sullivan","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T07:59:47.517264Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T05:14:43.625892Z","score":{"bm25":18.210043}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3577683,5536552,5537109,5810542,5866052,5923573],"download_url":null,"id":5932832,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T17:49:33.176141Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T05:14:43.643581Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nSullivan, J. P., and Kassal, J.,\ndissent in a memorandum by Sullivan, J. P., as follows: Since the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction is deficient as a matter of law, plaintiffs motion to dismiss said defense should have been granted.\nPlaintiff, a nationwide provider of messenger, delivery and pickup services, brought the instant action to recover $310,000 in damages for the alleged breach of a June ","type":"dissent"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5932831,5932832],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5175864/eaton-twp-bd-of-trustees-v-grafton/","attorney":"","caseName":"Eaton Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Grafton","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2021 Ohio 3446"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5175864,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-09-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19CA011555, 19CA011559","docket_id":60502290,"judge":"Carr","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:03:27.213726Z","date_created":"2021-09-30T16:16:03.448826Z","score":{"bm25":17.928682}},"neutralCite":"2021 Ohio 3446","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8066,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2021/2021-Ohio-3446.pdf","id":4997243,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/09/30/eaton_twp._bd._of_trustees_v._grafton.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T22:22:29.451594Z","date_created":"2021-09-30T16:16:03.470167Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7679a9f203de9a4931f13405d47c3127d22c6985","snippet":"[Cite as Eaton Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Grafton, 2021-Ohio-3446.]\n\n\nSTATE OF OHIO                    )                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n                                 )ss:                      NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT\nCOUNTY OF LORAIN                 )\n\nBOARD OF TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES FOR                             C.A. Nos.   19CA011555\nEATON TOWNSHIP, et al.                                                 19CA011559\n\n        Appellants\n\n        v.                                    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4997243],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"annexation, complete record, consent decree"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8260444/powell-v-md-dept-of-health/","attorney":"Argued by Ralph S. Tyler (Maggie T. Grace, Susan R. Schipper, Kelly E. Johnson, Venable LLP, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellants., Argued by Matthew J. Fader, Assistant Attorney General (Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Kathleen A. Ellis, Assistant Attorneys General, Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellee.","caseName":"Powell v. Md. Dep't of Health","caseNameFull":"Fredia POWELL v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH","citation":["168 A.3d 857","455 Md. 520"],"citeCount":19,"cluster_id":8260444,"court":"Court of Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md.","court_id":"md","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-08-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 77, Sept. Term, 2016.","docket_id":65438412,"judge":"McDonald","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T17:58:59.677561Z","date_created":"2022-10-15T13:18:35.760104Z","score":{"bm25":17.610876}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8225751,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T15:47:30.340847Z","date_created":"2022-10-15T13:18:35.777095Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMcDonald, J.\n**527A criminal prosecution may not proceed against a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. For that reason, a defendant may not be continued in pretrial detention unless the government is taking steps to provide treatment to restore the defendant to competence or to have the defendant civilly committed. Maryland law provi","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8225751],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4493738/duplan-v-city-of-new-york/","attorney":"Kathy A. Polias, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Jonathan A. Popolow (Jane L. Gordon, Dona B. Morris, on the brief), for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.","caseName":"Duplan v. City of New York","caseNameFull":"Louis M. DUPLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee.","citation":["888 F.3d 612"],"citeCount":457,"cluster_id":4493738,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-04-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Docket 17-1359-cv; August Term, 2017","docket_id":6379214,"judge":"Lynch, Lohier, Reiss","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:00:24.979534Z","date_created":"2018-04-30T14:00:14.980606Z","score":{"bm25":17.5211}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[23608,109509,109881,112313,121149,134736,145730,167213,176549,181377,604802,696272,716606,775900,786178,1194180,1229090,1276806,1303685,1358526,1405871,1457255,2336192,2620697,2762940,2783883,4020025,4168505,4194730,4236372,6942210,6975817,7231448,8408030,8410588,8412912,8413494,8413553,8413644,9006933,9842104],"download_url":"http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/40050d05-36d3-4f6e-b3e8-fef8008fb025/1/doc/17-1359_opn.pdf","id":4270991,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/04/30/duplan_v._city_of_new_york.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:56:09.749286Z","date_created":"2018-04-30T14:00:14.988502Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ce5f14436002c9c0b8921ea6cd95076a068dbf58","snippet":"\n\n\n  Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judge:\n \n\n  Louis Duplan appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Roslynn R. Mauskopf,\n  \n   J.\n  \n  ), dismissing his claim that his employer, the City of New York (\"the City\"), retaliated against him after he filed a discrimination complaint, in violation of\n  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4270991],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9443299/in-re-application-of-cline/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Application of Cline","caseNameFull":"","citation":["173 Ohio St. 3d 316","229 N.E.3d 1171","2023 Ohio 4169"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9443299,"court":"Ohio Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ohio","court_id":"ohio","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-11-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2023-1002","docket_id":68024383,"judge":"Per Curiam","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:19:58.255059Z","date_created":"2023-11-21T14:07:37.020886Z","score":{"bm25":16.852428}},"neutralCite":"2023 Ohio 4169","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2023/2023-Ohio-4169.pdf","id":9901124,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/11/21/in_re_application_of_cline.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:19:58.166609Z","date_created":"2023-11-21T14:07:37.030153Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bc985d3c3657ee97115205d3b08199dc9926da86","snippet":"[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In\nre Application of Cline, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4169.]\n\n\n\n\n                                         NOTICE\n     This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an\n     advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to\n     promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65\n     South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographi","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9901124],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Attorneys—Character and fitness—Application for admission to practice of law—Applicant failed to establish present character, fitness, and moral qualifications by clear and convincing evidence—Application disapproved and applicant permitted to reapply for admission at later date."}]}