{"count":6828,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xMS45NDMxMjQmcz01Mjk5ODMwJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMTAtMDYmcD0y&q=IMPEACHMENT+OF+MORTGAGES+FOR+FRAUD&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6479101/d2e-holdings-llc-v-corp-for-urban-home-ownership-of-new-haven/","attorney":"","caseName":"D2E Holdings, LLC v. Corp. for Urban Home Ownership of New Haven","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6479101,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-05-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC44218, AC44656","docket_id":63396282,"judge":"Alvord; Suarez; Bishop","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:38:29.119688Z","date_created":"2022-06-20T18:01:53.260150Z","score":{"bm25":26.83561}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1525653,2107954,2113677,2164610,2301615,2322592,2325953,2335080,2371935,2444435,2447899,3319630,4021761,4154934,4202406,4444703,4702790,4969409,5129786,5131944,6114351,6320702,7838977,7840758,7848191,7851377,7863850,9702049,9750920],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP212/212AP255.pdf","id":6351212,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/06/07/d2e_holdings_llc_v._corp._for_urban_home_ownership_of_new_haven.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T08:16:08.620430Z","date_created":"2022-06-20T18:01:53.261067Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dce1d7bbb60adff359a39b2bad682a76127607c3","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 to recover damages for breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, where the defendant filed a counterclaim and a third-party complaint; there- after, the third-party defendants filed a third-party coun- terclaim; subsequently, the matter was tried to the court, Hon. Jon C. Blue, judge trial referee; judgment for the defendant on the complaint, for the plaintiff on the counterclaim, for the third-party defendants on the third-party complaint, and for the third-party defendant Dragon Bridge Management, LLC, in part on its third- party counterclaim, from which the plaintiff and the third-party counterclaim plaintiffs appealed to this court; thereafter, the court, Hon. Jon C. Blue, judge trial referee, denied the plaintiff's motion to open the judgment, and the plaintiff filed a separate appeal to this court; subsequently, the third-party counterclaim plaintiff Eduardo Perez withdrew his appeal; thereafter, this court consolidated the appeals. Affirmed. Danielle J. B. Edwards, for the appellant in Docket Nos. 44218 and 44656 (plaintiff). Peter V. Lathouris, with whom, on the brief, was Victor Andreou, for the appellant in Docket No. 44218 (third-party defendant Dragon Bridge Management, LLC). Scott E. Jackson, for the appellee in Docket Nos. 44218 and 44656 (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6351212],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract in connection with a real estate contract in which the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendant certain residential units. The real estate contract required the plaintiff to obtain mortgage financing by a certain date and mandated that the defendant provide to the plaintiff various documents, to the extent such documents were existing and available. The defendant did not supply all of the documents requested by the plaintiff because certain documents did not yet exist. The closing date expired and the plaintiff never obtained mortgage financing. The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that the defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide it with the necessary documents for it to obtain mortgage financing and by retaining the plaintiff's deposit without intent to transfer title to the units. The defendant impleaded B Co. into the action by way of a third- party complaint. B Co. and the defendant had attempted to enter into a property management agreement. B Co., however, did not exist as a corporate entity on the date that the agreement was executed. P, a manager of B Co., signed the agreement, despite the fact that P was not a party to the agreement. B Co. filed a third-party counterclaim against the defendant alleging that the defendant breached the manage- ment agreement and was unjustly enriched when it failed to pay B Co. for all of its services. After a trial to the court, the trial court found in favor of the defendant as to the plaintiff's claim alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, concluding that the defendant had no obligation to provide the plaintiff with documents that did not exist. The court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant as to B Co.'s breach of contract claim on the ground that the management agreement was a ''nullity'' because B Co. did not exist when the manage- ment agreement was executed. The plaintiff and B Co. appealed from the trial court's judgment, and, while that appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed a motion to open the trial court's judgment on the ground that the defendant engaged in fraud by concealing that it had sold the residential units to another entity for a higher price. The court denied the motion, reasoning that, even if the plaintiff's contentions were true, this would not have affected its determination that the defendant per- formed its obligations under the contract, and the plaintiff filed a sepa- rate appeal to this court, which consolidated the appeals. Held: 1. The plaintiff could not prevail on its claim that the trial court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's claim alleging that the defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which was based on its claim that the court incorrectly determined that the defendant did not act in bad faith by failing to provide to the plaintiff the documents necessary for it to obtain mortgage financing and by accepting the plaintiff's deposit without the intent to transfer title to the residential units: the court determined that the defendant did not act in bad faith by failing to provide the plaintiff with documents to secure financing that did not exist, the agreement does not mandate that the defendant create nonexistent documents, rather, the agreement mandates the opposite, namely, that the defendant must provide the plaintiff with documents that are existing and available; moreover, the defendant did not act in bad faith by retaining the plain- tiff's deposit because the agreement permitted the defendant to retain the deposit in the event that the plaintiff defaulted, and it was undisputed that the plaintiff defaulted on its obligations because it did not obtain mortgage financing to comply with the agreement. 2. This court declined to review B Co.'s claim that the trial court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on B Co.'s breach of con- tract counterclaim, which was based on its claim that the court incor- rectly determined that the management agreement between B Co. and the defendant was a nullity: the trial court did not review any of the fact bound arguments made by B Co. in support of its claim that it was able to enforce the agreement against the defendant, and, therefore, the record was inadequate for this court to consider B Co.'s arguments because the court never made the requisite determination as to the issues of P's capacity, as to P's assignment of the agreement and the defendant's ratification of the agreement, and B Co. failed to seek reargu- ment or an articulation as to any of these grounds; moreover, although B Co. lacked the capacity to enter into the management agreement because it did not exist as a corporate entity at the time the agreement was executed, B Co.'s lack of capacity did not, by itself, render the agreement a nullity, as the management agreement may have been enforceable between P and the defendant if P had the capacity to execute the agreement on behalf B Co., however, the issue of P's capacity was not determined by the court, which determined only that the agreement was a nullity because B Co. was not yet legally formed. 3. The plaintiff's claim that the trial court incorrectly determined that it failed to make a threshold showing of fraud in order to warrant limited discovery and an evidentiary hearing on its motion to open was unavail- ing: the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to open because the plaintiff failed to make a threshold showing of substance warranting the opening of the judgment, that court having correctly determined that, even if the defendant sold the residential units to another entity, this would have had no impact on its judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, as the court determined that the defendant complied with the real estate agreement, and the defendant's interactions with a separate buyer were immaterial to the plaintiff's claims. Argued March 8—officially released May 31, 2022"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4785033/susan-manchester-chapter-7-tr-v-united-states-bankruptcy-court-for-the/","attorney":"","caseName":"Susan Manchester, Chapter 7 Tr v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4785033,"court":"Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit","court_citation_string":"10th Cir. BAP","court_id":"bap10","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-09-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-5","docket_id":18436498,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:23:22.147411Z","date_created":"2020-09-14T21:00:43.823620Z","score":{"bm25":21.583794}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112522,112883,118031,147873,153349,155835,162696,169233,170160,214509,399514,543154,556605,564902,667649,668241,696344,770524,1524962,1825814,1825985,1843375,1868036,1876674,1907924,1911065,1956034,1975177,2026643,2193277,2196966,2201126],"download_url":"http://www.bap10.uscourts.gov/opinions/20/20-5.pdf","id":4565380,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/09/14/susan_manchester_chapter_7_tr_v._united_states_bankruptcy_court_for_the.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:19:39.190149Z","date_created":"2020-09-14T21:00:43.825145Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ee847eec90fdfdaa96f0e62d2fce18c0e2908d1e","snippet":"                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION *\n              UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL\n                              OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT\n                          _________________________________\n\n    IN RE ALL PHASE ROOFING AND                           BAP No. WO-20-004\n    CONSTRUCTION, LLC,                                    BAP No. WO-20-005\n\n              Debtor,\n\n    IN RE RICKY SHARPTON,\n                                                           Bankr. No. 17-12414\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4565380],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4836238/mark-a-cantu-iii-v-commission-for-lawyer-discipline/","attorney":"","caseName":"Mark A. Cantu III v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4836238,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi","court_id":"txctapp13","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-12-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"13-16-00332-CV","docket_id":18718946,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:36:55.053078Z","date_created":"2020-12-07T08:18:45.862577Z","score":{"bm25":19.593254}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112903,894602,894682,894743,894975,895053,895074,895102,895127,895170,895255,895402,895405,1380529,1381763,1399312,1401707,1403766,1403796,1442844,1473124,1496158,1501456,1507148,1508153,1513488,1518937,1528364,1564703,1564724,1568703,1577321,1577404,1623904,1670188,1677468,1687171,1713571,1728264,1747332,1748079,1748655,1749669,1759529,1760562,1768507,1773773,1781525,1781715,1782118,1794332,1876469,1878856,1988667,2004258,2007757,2104125,2124977,2186828,2192358,2287306,2287409,2330998,2335019,2342919,2357482,2369521,2385388,2385878,2392570,2413973,2416537,2425302,2428985,2432012,2435941,2436853,2437921,2438110,2438826,2441554,2446287,2452837,2461515,2461570,2461826,2463975,2468315,2538525,2539352],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=24673&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa13%5cOpinion","id":4640017,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/12/03/mark_a._cantu_iii_v._commission_for_lawyer_discipline.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:36:55.045108Z","date_created":"2020-12-07T08:18:45.864379Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e4ea24270da093d6416559c4a4348bbbeb4f2998","snippet":"                         NUMBER 13-16-00332-CV\n\n                             COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n\n                       CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG\n\n\n\nMARK A. CANTU III,                                                     Appellant,\n\n                                          v.\n\nCOMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE,                                        Appellee.\n\n\n                  On appeal from the 398th District Court\n                        of Hid","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4640017],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2166441/council-of-co-owners-for-the-lakeshore-resort-v-glyneu-llc/","attorney":"Niswanger Law Firm, PLC, by: Stephen B. Niswanger, for appellant., Hardin & Grace, P.A., by: David A. Grace, for appellee.","caseName":"Council of Co-Owners for the Lakeshore Resort v. Glyneu, LLC","caseNameFull":"Council of Co-Owners for the Lakeshore Resort and Yacht Club Horizontal Property Regime v. Glyneu, LLC","citation":["240 S.W.3d 600","367 Ark. 397","2006 Ark. LEXIS 486"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":2166441,"court":"Supreme Court of Arkansas","court_citation_string":"Ark.","court_id":"ark","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2006-10-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"06-354","docket_id":52155,"judge":"Robert L. Brown","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T09:25:52.570747Z","date_created":"2015-04-01T17:10:27.851755Z","score":{"bm25":19.469013}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3739,"cites":[1400438,1439032,1728205,1746276,1756388,1791846,1877757,1960470,2276031,2333578,2427037,2440652,2451825],"download_url":null,"id":2166441,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T17:52:08.430211Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:30:47.643058Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c21bff598ec1aec643d2cb7334c8b2f4316da9ec","snippet":"\n240 S.W.3d 600 (2006)\nCOUNCIL OF CO-OWNERS FOR the LAKESHORE RESORT AND YACHT CLUB HORIZONTAL PROPERTY REGIME, Appellants,\nv.\nGLYNEU, LLC, Appellee.\nNo. 06-354.\nSupreme Court of Arkansas.\nOctober 5, 2006.\nRehearing Denied November 9, 2006.\n*602 Niswanger Law Firm, PLC, by: Stephen B. Niswanger, Little Rock, AR, f","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2166441],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2750180/simcha-berman-v-laura-sitrin-in-her-capacity-as-finance-director-for-the/","attorney":"Ronald' J. Resmini, Esq., Providence, Kevin P. Gavin, Esq., Portsmouth, for Plaintiffs., James R. Lee, Department of Attorney General, for Defendants.","caseName":"Simcha Berman v. Laura Sitrin, in her capacity as Finance Director for the City of Newport","caseNameFull":"Simcha BERMAN Et Al. v. Laura SITRIN, in Her Capacity as Finance Director for the City of Newport Et Al.","citation":["101 A.3d 1251","2014 R.I. LEXIS 137"],"citeCount":24,"cluster_id":2750180,"court":"Supreme Court of Rhode Island","court_citation_string":"R.I.","court_id":"ri","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-11-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"11-266, 12-77, 12-116","docket_id":2595252,"judge":"Suttell, Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, Indeglia","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:24:07.145038Z","date_created":"2014-11-10T17:07:01.269181Z","score":{"bm25":19.367443}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[186152,750075,1475069,1540727,1589326,1901712,1928861,1937847,1946427,1948392,1964673,1965747,1966406,1972633,1979794,1988833,1993882,1994859,2066589,2069162,2070208,2072122,2084684,2104965,2107679,2108204,2160810,2172208,2191648,2191756,2263177,2274434,2274618,2276432,2310520,2322840,2326921,2327179,2346475,2351548,2351686,2362047,2363011,2370012,2383955,2402341,3864482,3865821],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/Opinions/11-266, 12-77, 12-116.pdf","id":2750180,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/11/10/simcha_berman_v._laura_sitrin_in_her_capacity_as_finance_director_for_the.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:48:18.744127Z","date_created":"2014-11-10T17:06:51.431517Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4be02637df205c85661f018abccbecf55e34f7d4","snippet":"\n\n\n  OPINION\n \n\n  Justice INDEGLIA, for the Court.\n \n\n  The plaintiffs, Simcha Berman and Sarah Berman,\n  \n   1\n  \n  appeal from (1) a judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, the State of Rhode Island, in the plaintiffs’ civil action seeking damages and (2) the trial court’s denial of motions ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2750180],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/76547/gonzalez-v-secretary-for-the-department-of-corrections/","attorney":"Paul M. Rashkind, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kathleen M. Williams, Fed. Public Defender, Miami, FL, for Gonzalez., Cassandra Kaye Dolgin, Tallahassee, FL, Paulette R. Taylor, Miami, FL, for Crosby., Milton Hirsch and David 0. Markus (Court-Appointed), Miami, FL, for Lazo., Lynn Dena Rosenthal, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Anne R. Schultz, Dawn Bowen, Lisa T. Rubio, Miami, FL, for U.S., Brian Steel, The Steel Law Firm, P.C., August F. Siemon, Atlanta, GA, for Mob-ley., Beth Attaway Burton, State of Georgia Law Dept., Atlanta, GA, for Schofield.","caseName":"Gonzalez v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections","caseNameFull":"Aurelio O. GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, James Crosby, Secretary, Respondent-Appellee; Emil Lazo, Petitioner-Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-Appellee; Stephen A. Mobley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derrick Schofield, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent-Appellee","citation":["366 F.3d 1253"],"citeCount":154,"cluster_id":76547,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"11th Cir.","court_id":"ca11","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2004-04-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"02-12054, 02-12483 and 02-14224","docket_id":397989,"judge":"Edmondson, Tjoflat, Anderson, Birch, Dubina, Black, Carnes, Barkett, Hull, Marcus, Wilson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T18:05:00.372169Z","date_created":"2016-01-29T22:45:33.368995Z","score":{"bm25":18.699757}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9415847,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:29:50.663865Z","date_created":"2023-08-02T19:11:31.270900Z"},"ordering_key":3,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nTJOFLAT, Circuit Judge,\nspecially concurring in part and dissenting in part.1\nI.\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) authorizes the district courts to relieve a party to a civil action from the force of a final judgment on the following grounds:\n(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect","type":"in-part-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[14725,71046,74428,75650,75878,76289,100337,103987,104081,104615,106591,109067,109117,111017,112084,112573,112773,112835,117893,117922,118202,118356,118359,118389,118460,121155,122249,122258,131151,196077,200408,611695,729638,729999,731340,748788,751199,753072,756745,765629,767088,769210,770933,772623,773518,775312,776642,778237,778932,779009,779228,779416,779656,780284,780683,781709,783175,1219308,1277367,1307577],"download_url":"http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212054ord2.pdf","id":76547,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2004/04/26/Gonzalez_v._Sec.-Dept._of_Corr..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T13:01:35.254729Z","date_created":"2010-04-27T00:08:03Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c562845e8b4ea0ecc114911de111a9bf71e20c71","snippet":"366 F.3d 1253\n    Aurelio O. GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,v.SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, James Crosby, Secretary, Respondent-Appellee.Emil Lazo, Petitioner-Appellant,v.United States of America, Respondent-Appellee.Stephen A. Mobley, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Derrick Schofield, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent-Appellee.\n    No. 02-12054.\n    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[76547,9415845,9415846,9415847,9415848],"source":"CRU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5295506/dhi-holdings-lp-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust-company-as-trustee-for/","attorney":"","caseName":"DHI Holdings, LP v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-He3, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-He3 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-He3 And Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5295506,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp14","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-11-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14-19-00991-CV","docket_id":60797979,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:48:15.684482Z","date_created":"2021-11-08T08:21:23.396135Z","score":{"bm25":17.203085}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1377217,2335391,2340803,4887121,4887710,5282700],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=32777&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa14%5cOpinion","id":5124068,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/11/02/dhi_holdings_lp_v._deutsche_bank_national_trust_company_as_trustee_for_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T12:48:15.681991Z","date_created":"2021-11-08T08:21:23.399217Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c1fe27904d612280bb18f8234f3977b020b8da4d","snippet":"Affirmed and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed November 2, 2021.\n\n\n\n\n                                        In The\n\n                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals\n\n                                NO. 14-19-00991-CV\n\n                         DHI HOLDINGS, LP, Appellant\n\n                                          V.\n DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR\n    MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2006-HE3,\n  MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE3;\n DEUTSCHE BANK","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5124068],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10406995/joseph-m-benson-v-pamela-benson-and-edward-benson-as-of-the-estate-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Joseph M. Benson v. Pamela Benson and Edward Benson, as / of the Estate of August Frank Benson, Jr., and Bank of Romney","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10406995,"court":"Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia","court_citation_string":"","court_id":"wvactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24-ica-247","docket_id":69982603,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-04-29T21:32:12.707522Z","date_created":"2025-04-29T21:32:12.670310Z","score":{"bm25":15.529936}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1207828,1216291,1283866,1320025,1322271,1327873,1339082,1340275,1375110,1386511,4004194,4162028,8178752,8179987],"download_url":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2025-04/24-ICA-247_MD.pdf","id":10873583,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/04/29/joseph_m._benson_v._pamela_benson_and_edward_benson_as__of_the_estate_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:20:21.994412Z","date_created":"2025-04-29T21:32:12.672047Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3ea4f714d78b84017e0fbe2d9329081484a1dae0","snippet":"       IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA\n\nJOSEPH M. BENSON,\nPlaintiff Below, Petitioner\n\nv.) No. 24-ICA-247            (Cir. Ct. Hampshire Cnty. Case No. CC-14-2023-P-12)\n\nPAMELA BENSON AND EDWARD BENSON, AS                                         FILED\nEXECUTRIX/EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF                                      April 29, 2025\nAUGUST FRANK BENSON, JR.,                                           ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK\n                                   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10873583],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Probate","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4707417/the-bank-of-new-york-mellon-v-mazzeo/","attorney":"","caseName":"The Bank of New York Mellon v. Mazzeo","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4707417,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-01-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC42180","docket_id":16717159,"judge":"Keller; Prescott; Harper","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:37:58.797439Z","date_created":"2020-01-17T13:02:49.959405Z","score":{"bm25":14.589333}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1487893,1977308,1991579,1991876,1995830,2195935,2320600,2325612],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP195/195AP100.pdf","id":4486848,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/01/21/the_bank_of_new_york_mellon_v._mazzeo.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:37:58.629858Z","date_created":"2020-01-17T13:02:49.963204Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"00503ddeb6a477a82b61f1de9bc67d99fc12a863","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 to foreclose a mortgage on certain real prop- erty owned by the named defendant et al., and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis- trict of Fairfield and tried to the court, Hon. Michael Hartmere, judge trial referee; judgment of foreclosure by sale, from which the named defendant et al. appealed to this court. Reversed; judgment directed. Janine M. Becker, with whom, on the brief, was Patricia Moore, for the appellants (named defendant et al.). Benjamin Staskiewicz, for the appellee (plaintiff).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4486848],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff bank, M Co., sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendants J and L. At trial, the court denied the motion for judgment filed by J and L, which was based on their claim that M Co. failed to make out a prima facie case because a condition precedent to foreclosure, namely, notice of default prior to acceleration, had not been proven. The trial court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale, from which J and L appealed to this court. Held: 1. J and L could not prevail on their claim that M Co. lacked standing, which was based on their claim that M Co. failed to establish that it was the holder of the note when it commenced the present action: M Co.'s production of the original note at trial, as well as the admission into evidence of the copy of the note through H, a litigation manager for B Co., the subservicer for the loan securing M Co.'s mortgage to J and L's property, raised a presumption that M Co. was the holder of the note, and it then became the burden of J and L to rebut that presumption in order to challenge M Co.'s right to enforce the note, which they failed to do; moreover, even though J and L claimed that the court improperly admitted into evidence the routing history of the loan, that evidence was not necessary to prove that M Co. was a holder of the note, as M Co. produced the note, which was endorsed in blank, and, thus, the challenge by J and L to the admission of the routing history, even if valid, did not rebut the presumption that M Co. owned the debt when this action commenced. 2. The trial court improperly concluded that M Co. proved its prima facie foreclosure case: even though J and L could not prevail on their claim that M Co. did not demonstrate that it was the owner of the debt, M Co. did not prove that all conditions precedent to foreclosure, as established by the note and mortgage, had been satisfied, specifically, M Co. did not demonstrate that it provided J and L with notice of default, as the plain language of the mortgage note required that notices of default be sent by first class mail, and the default notice admitted into evidence and H's accompanying testimony did not provide sufficient facts for a trier of fact reasonably to infer that the notice was mailed to J and L; moreover, A Co., the master servicer of the loan, generated the default notice, and H, as a representative of B Co., the subservicer for the loan, was not able to testify as to the practices A Co. employed to generate or mail default notices, and H's sole basis for claiming that notice was mailed was the existence of the notice and a screenshot from A Co.'s servicing platform that included a breach and expiration date consistent with the date on the default notice; furthermore, H provided no pertinent details regarding B Co.'s boarding process or methods of verification, and although H testified that the screenshot was part of the verification process for the mailing of the default notice, H lacked personal knowledge of the policies and procedures used to generate the screenshot; accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to support the court's determination that a default notice was sent to J and L via first class mail, and, thus, M Co. failed to prove a prima facie foreclosure case. Argued October 15, 2019—officially released January 21, 2020"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10124553/panuelos-v-bank-of-america-na/","attorney":"","caseName":"Panuelos v. Bank of America, N.A.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["155 Haw. 95","556 P.3d 1275"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10124553,"court":"Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Haw. App.","court_id":"hawapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-09-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CAAP-20-0000576","docket_id":67089897,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:21:33.314007Z","date_created":"2024-09-24T19:04:27.276219Z","score":{"bm25":14.446942}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1280294,1962932,2644750,3173798,4319236,4455377,4645237,5121016,6493996,8500066,9785322],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/CAAP-20-0000576mop.pdf","id":10591154,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/09/24/panuelos_v._bank_of_america_n.a..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T21:51:46.731649Z","date_created":"2024-09-24T19:04:27.277940Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f98643aa6d4e8de2003d8f8ec20089bfffb9bce1","snippet":"NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER\n\n\n\n\n                                          Electronically Filed\n                                          Intermediate Court of Appeals\n                                          CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                          24-SEP-2024\n                                          08:39 AM\n                                          Dkt. 80 MO\n\n NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX\n\n\n             IN ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10591154],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4792035/in-re-marriage-of-nelson/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Marriage of Nelson","caseNameFull":"","citation":["475 P.3d 1284"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":4792035,"court":"Court of Appeals of Kansas","court_citation_string":"Kan. Ct. App.","court_id":"kanctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-10-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"122190","docket_id":18500017,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-13T19:47:24.020857Z","date_created":"2020-10-02T15:04:59.877547Z","score":{"bm25":13.65557}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1180173,1307441,1424035,2386630,2601940,2635890],"download_url":"https://www.kscourts.org/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Opinions/122190.pdf?ext=.pdf","id":4572382,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/10/02/in_re_marriage_of_nelson.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-13T19:47:24.019919Z","date_created":"2020-10-02T15:04:59.879434Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e88e810345a3cb4905b34ee0b5863ea25041afdd","snippet":"                                       No. 122,190\n\n            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS\n\n                             In the Matter of the Marriage of\n                                 SHERRY LYNN NELSON,\n                                        Appellant,\n\n                                            and\n\n                                  TERRY ALLEN NELSON,\n                                        Appellee.\n\n\n                             SYLLABUS BY THE COURT\n\n1.\n       Prem","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4572382],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4671199/tartt-v-united-states-of-america/","attorney":"","caseName":"Tartt v. United States of America","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4671199,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-10-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2019-1615","docket_id":16358296,"judge":"Judge Timothy J. Kelly","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:51:45.289071Z","date_created":"2019-10-21T18:00:46.250617Z","score":{"bm25":13.507886}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8589,"cites":[96050,108987,398779,681587,794887,2520562],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv1615-54","id":4448452,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/10/21/tartt_v._united_states_of_america.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:59:39.514869Z","date_created":"2019-10-21T18:00:46.272649Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"495856c225fe7893f55a075527b2ff23b0e5f6de","snippet":"                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                                FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\nDERRICK B. TARTT,\n\n                  Plaintiff,\n       v.                                             Civil Action No. 19-1615 (TJK)\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,\n\n                  Defendants.\n\n\n                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION\n\n       Derrick B. Tartt, proceeding pro se, asserts that he is the victim of a sprawling conspiracy\n\nperpetrated by almost","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4448452],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9503039/the-water-works-and-sewer-board-of-the-city-of-prichard-v-synovus-bank/","attorney":"","caseName":"The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Prichard v. Synovus Bank (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-23-901332).","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9503039,"court":"Supreme Court of Alabama","court_citation_string":"Ala.","court_id":"ala","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-05-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC-2023-0881","docket_id":68538791,"judge":"Sellers, J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:32:06.170589Z","date_created":"2024-05-17T14:02:02.141442Z","score":{"bm25":13.297313}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[338496,2758006,4797891,7233714],"download_url":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/AEFE1A58-58BD-41C0-AAB1-94CEEEAA831D/docketentrydocuments/6A6B418C-87FD-493D-908A-B39ED031E685","id":9969652,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/05/17/the_water_works_and_sewer_board_of_the_city_of_prichard_v._synovus_bank.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T05:19:08.333602Z","date_created":"2024-05-17T14:02:02.151427Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2bca89fbc2d25ff8963fcf07c587b50deba988ae","snippet":"Rel: May 17, 2024\n\n\n\n\nNotice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern\nReporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,\n300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other\nerrors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.\n\n\n\n\n         SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA\n                             OCTOBER TERM, 20","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9969652],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8713105/certain-underwriters-at-lloyds-of-london-v-alesi/","attorney":"Michael Joshua Needleman, Spector Ga-don & Rosen, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff and counter-defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London., Stanley B. Cheiken, Jenkintown, PA, for defendant, counter-claimant, and cross-defendant Salvatore Alesi., Brian M. Fleischer, Fleischer & Fleischer, Voorhees, NJ, for defendant, cross-claimant, and counter-claimant GMAC Mortgage, Ally Bank Corporation.","caseName":"Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Alesi","caseNameFull":"CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant v. Salvatore ALESI, GMAC Mortgage, Ally Bank Corp., Defendants/Counter-Claimants/Cross-Claimants/Counter-defendants/Cross-Defendants","citation":["843 F. Supp. 2d 517","2011 WL 6935015","2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149684"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":8713105,"court":"District Court, D. New Jersey","court_citation_string":"D.N.J.","court_id":"njd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-12-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil No. 10-1796","docket_id":65979017,"judge":"Hillman","lexisCite":"2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149684","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:05:49.499965Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T04:57:25.926886Z","score":{"bm25":12.890223}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8696295,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:23:54.661462Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T04:57:25.933549Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nHILLMAN, District Judge.\nBefore the Court are a motion for partial summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff and counter-defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (“Lloyd’s”), a motion for partial summary judgment against Lloyd’s filed by defendant, cross-claimant, and counterclaimant GMAC Mortgage and Ally Bank Corporation (collectively “GMAC”), and a motion","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8696295],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9382340/yanagi-v-bank-of-america/","attorney":"","caseName":"Yanagi v. Bank of America.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9382340,"court":"Hawaii Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Haw.","court_id":"haw","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SCCQ-21-0000462","docket_id":66972001,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:02:02.189110Z","date_created":"2023-03-08T20:02:43.255887Z","score":{"bm25":12.885648}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1169839,1254648,2547279,2627982,3133690,3170209,4094705,4148591,4181050,4193133,4285104,4455377,4530567,5121016,6482460,6495077,7250742,9425508,9429236,9613212,9835475],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/SCCQ-21-0000462.pdf","id":9377816,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/08/yanagi_v._bank_of_america..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T18:41:55.052717Z","date_created":"2023-03-08T20:02:43.257161Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8efd306226842f24cd3017d1f9c3c386e096c29f","snippet":" ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***\n\n\n\n\n                                                       Electronically Filed\n                                                       Supreme Court\n                                                       SCCQ-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                                       08-MAR-2023\n                                                       09:03 AM\n                                                       Dkt. 65 OP\n   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9377816],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4904618/in-the-matter-of-estate-of-lila-may-childres/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of Estate of Lila May Childres","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4904618,"court":"Court of Chancery of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del. Ch.","court_id":"delch","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-08-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2018-0462-PWG","docket_id":60103026,"judge":"Griffin M.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:55:05.085904Z","date_created":"2021-08-02T17:05:38.950866Z","score":{"bm25":12.864437}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1437916,1471748,1982698,2557700,4966650],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=322890","id":4708397,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/08/02/in_the_matter_of_estate_of_lila_may_childres.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:14:02.450244Z","date_created":"2021-08-02T17:05:38.960594Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"19814bcfe88c8bc186c8210ab4f92a7938b0dd21","snippet":"   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\n\nIN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF            :     C.A. No.:   2018-0462-PWG\nLILA MAY CHILDRES, deceased               :                 2020-0928-PWG\n                                          :     Register of Wills No: 16219\n\n\n\n\n                            MASTER’S REPORT\n\n\n                        Date Submitted:   June 28, 2021\n                        Draft Report:     July 16, 2021\n                        Final Report:     August 2, 2021\n\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4708397],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2298326/reinstatement-of-cooke/","attorney":"M. Albert Figinski of Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, Baltimore, MD, for petitioner., Glenn M. Grossman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, for respondent.","caseName":"Reinstatement of Cooke","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of Ira C. COOKE for Reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland","citation":["42 A.3d 610","425 Md. 652","2012 WL 1521988","2012 Md. LEXIS 215"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":2298326,"court":"Court of Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md.","court_id":"md","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-04-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Misc. Docket AG No. 82, September Term, 2007","docket_id":2143864,"judge":"Bell, Adkins, McDonald","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:26:06.719834Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:13:58.851694Z","score":{"bm25":12.602713}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":4664,"cites":[105108,105240,107951,111945,1436380,1439442,1463350,1505879,1534147,1970212,2055056,2055107,2068232,2079820,2084532,2277038,2295688,2313583,2314561,2324528,2330419,2386034,2391955,3484927],"download_url":null,"id":2298326,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:47:04.963460Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:00:56.234613Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1d9e9c81cd56daf4a5b30fd3e866a048269ada86","snippet":"\n42 A.3d 610 (2012)\n425 Md. 652\nIn the Matter of Ira C. COOKE for Reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland.\nMisc. Docket AG No. 82, September Term, 2007.\nCourt of Appeals of Maryland.\nApril 25, 2012.\n*613 M. Albert Figinsky of Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, Baltimore, MD, for petitioner.\nGlenn M. Grossman, Bar","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2298326,9751071,9751072,9751073],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5049077/berry-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust-co/","attorney":"Kenneth James Lay, Legal Services Alabama, Inc., Birmingham, for appellants., Gregory M. Deitsch, R. Ryan Daugherty, and Meaghan E. Ryan of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.","caseName":"Berry v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.","caseNameFull":"Stephanie BERRY and Eva Berry v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-1","citation":["57 So. 3d 142","2010 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 243","2010 WL 3377712"],"citeCount":21,"cluster_id":5049077,"court":"Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama","court_citation_string":"Ala. Civ. App.","court_id":"alacivapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-08-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2080840","docket_id":60298961,"judge":"Bryan, Moore, Pittman, Thomas, Thompson, Writing","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:30:24.090403Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T01:58:50.435816Z","score":{"bm25":12.3599}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4863286,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:11:17.315517Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T01:58:50.456049Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPITTMAN, Judge,\ndissenting.\nViewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to the Berrys as the non-movants, the foreclosed property was worth between $84,800 and $86,500 but fetched $33,915 at the judicial sale, an amount that is between 39% and 40% of the property’s fair-market value. As a general rule, a naked claim of inadequacy of a winning bid will not legally support impeaching the validity of a ","type":"dissent"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4863285,4863286],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5016471/in-re-the-succession-of-reno/","attorney":"William C. Shockey, Bradley C, Stid-ham, Baton Rouge, LA, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee, James B. Reno, , Mark D. Plaisance, Thibodaux, LA, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant, Dorothy L. Reno","caseName":"In re the Succession of Reno","caseNameFull":"IN the Matter of the SUCCESSION OF Vic RENO","citation":["202 So. 3d 1147","2015 La.App. 1 Cir. 0854","2016 La. App. LEXIS 1645"],"citeCount":10,"cluster_id":5016471,"court":"Louisiana Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"La. Ct. App.","court_id":"lactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-09-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"NO. 2015 CA 0854","docket_id":60257178,"judge":"Crain, Higginbotham, Holdridge, Pettigrew, Welch","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:22:10.533526Z","date_created":"2021-08-22T17:28:45.442739Z","score":{"bm25":12.019912}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4829550,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:03:39.804860Z","date_created":"2021-08-22T17:28:45.455551Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nHIGGINBOTHAM, J.'\nIn this succession proceeding, appellant, Dorothy Reno (Mrs. Reno), the surviving spouse of the decedent, Vic Reno (Mr. Reno), appeals four judgménts by the district court, each dated March 2, 2015. The judgments ordered the homologation of the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth tab-leaus of distribution submitted by the administrator of the succession, Mr. Reno’s son, appellee,' James B. Reno (Jimmy), aut","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4829550,4829551,4829552],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5299830/in-re-application-of-natalie-au-nishida/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re: Application of Natalie Au Nishida","caseNameFull":"","citation":["150 Haw. 219","499 P.3d 419"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5299830,"court":"Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Haw. App.","court_id":"hawapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-11-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CAAP-17-0000586","docket_id":61567706,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T17:59:44.161259Z","date_created":"2021-11-22T19:11:30.361881Z","score":{"bm25":11.943124}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[513427,954848,1360139,1414270,2514043,2516473,2517160,2547279,2588750,2600152,3157323,3408692,4024645,4148924,4269618,4455377,4574644,6494733,8781219,9429125,9506509,9506534,9783020,9786178,9786882,9798797,9806156],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CAAP-17-0000586mop.pdf","id":5128392,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/11/22/in_re_application_of_natalie_au_nishida.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T20:19:01.203861Z","date_created":"2021-11-22T19:11:30.364073Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0655bd8d4d7e735889f3d52bfee43ee863cbc604","snippet":"  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER\n\n\n\n\n                                                  Electronically Filed\n                                                  Intermediate Court of Appeals\n                                                  CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                                  22-NOV-2021\n                                                  07:51 AM\n                                                  Dkt. 227 MO\n\n\n                         ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5128392],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}