{"count":140618,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yNi45MDMwNDgmcz05NDQ5ODMxJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDgtMTgmcD0y&q=INTERPRETATION+CLAUSES+IN+STATUTES+PRINCIPLES+OF+INTERPRETATION&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9474051/in-the-matter-of-the-interpretation-of-south-dakota-constitution-and-state/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Interpretation of South Dakota Constitution and State Law Re: State Legislator's Interest in State or County Contracts","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 S.D. 11"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":9474051,"court":"South Dakota Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"S.D.","court_id":"sd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"30488","docket_id":68240893,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:25:03.120400Z","date_created":"2024-02-09T22:10:00.860152Z","score":{"bm25":67.29258}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[84759,85160,145918,620900,867401,901239,901661,1095462,1286041,1379261,1450566,1580182,1596126,1823927,1835285,1906907,1958566,2810526,3188774,3572089,4288893,6683400,6685162,6685885,6688409,6688522,6690084,8148759,9226134,9418961,9433491,9435860,9514504,9514834,9514841,9514939,9515341,9515379,9515710,9668000,9692340,9720448,9724530,9857261,9974472,9974483,9974590],"download_url":"https://ujs.sd.gov/uploads/sc/opinions/30488ac53a4b.pdf","id":9939477,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/02/09/in_the_matter_of_the_interpretation_of_south_dakota_constitution_and_state.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T09:55:00.678921Z","date_created":"2024-02-09T22:10:00.879984Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f6da3081ee14182168dc3fb5700a82544a9d8490","snippet":"#30488\n2024 S.D. 11\n\n\n\n\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT\n\n                            OF THE\n\n                    STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA\n\n                             ****\n\n                             #30488\n\n          IN RE: THE REQUEST OF SOUTH DAKOTA GOVERNOR\n      KRISTI NOEM FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION IN THE MATTER OF\n       INTERPRETATION OF SOUTH DAKOTA CONSTITUTION AND\n       STATE LAWS REGARDING STATE LEGISLATOR’S INTEREST\n                   IN STATE OR COUNTY CONTRACTS\n\n         ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9939477],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4677112/in-the-matter-of-the-application-of-coe-college-for-interpretation-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Application of Coe College for Interpretation of Purported Gift Restrictions v. Coe College","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4677112,"court":"Supreme Court of Iowa","court_citation_string":"Iowa","court_id":"iowa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-11-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-0155","docket_id":16445163,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:53:15.555068Z","date_created":"2019-11-08T15:03:52.017443Z","score":{"bm25":66.17156}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1246101,1281726,1749422,1792682,1842323,1910005,1971120,2075673,2087782,2197495,3434479],"download_url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/7947/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion","id":4454365,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/11/08/in_the_matter_of_the_application_of_coe_college_for_interpretation_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:03:47.404341Z","date_created":"2019-11-08T15:03:52.021828Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"417d570512bc61bc350a29e5bf3542a6e09b6c01","snippet":"                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA\n                                  No. 19–0155\n\n                         Filed November 8, 2019\n\n\nIN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF COE COLLEGE FOR\nINTERPRETATION OF PURPORTED GIFT RESTRICTION,\n\nCOE COLLEGE,\n\n      Appellant.\n\n\n      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae Hoover-\n\nGrinde, Judge.\n\n\n\n      A college appeals a district court judgment denying its request for\n\ndeclaratory relief as to the terms of a 1976 charitable gift","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4454365],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4788803/abortion-statutory-interpretation-whether-section-20-208-of-the/","attorney":"","caseName":"Abortion Statutory Interpretation –Whether Section 20-208 of the Health-General Article Prohibits Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse Midwives, and Physician Assistants from Providing Medication Abortions – Whether the Same Statute Prohibits Physician Assistants from Performing Surgical Abortions","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4788803,"court":"Maryland Attorney General Reports","court_citation_string":"Md. Att'y Gen.","court_id":"mdag","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-09-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"105 OAG 003","docket_id":18469166,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:24:19.602890Z","date_created":"2020-09-24T05:06:37.186013Z","score":{"bm25":35.2331}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104631,108713,112786,308641,884911,1088006,1469221,1482054,1486982,1529850,1547891,1941939,1990492,2074797,2090215,2166385,2185972,2319670,2320321,2334674,2361281,2402252,2403285],"download_url":"http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/Opinions Documents/2020/105oag003 .pdf","id":4569150,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/09/23/abortion_statutory_interpretation_whether_section_20-208_of_the.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:22:06.485782Z","date_created":"2020-09-24T05:06:37.189745Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2560c434240c689e908795c14da5805707e16bb3","snippet":"                           ABORTION\nSTATUTORY INTERPRETATION – WHETHER SECTION 20-208 OF\n    THE HEALTH-GENERAL ARTICLE PROHIBITS NURSE\n    PRACTITIONERS, CERTIFIED NURSE MIDWIVES, AND\n    PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS FROM PROVIDING MEDICATION\n    ABORTIONS – WHETHER THE SAME STATUTE PROHIBITS\n    PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS FROM PERFORMING SURGICAL\n    ABORTIONS\n                         January 10, 2020\nThe Honorable Ariana Kelly\nMaryland House of Delegates\n      You have requested our opinion on two question","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4569150],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2723197/in-re-fuel-adjustment-clauses-for-columbus-s-power-co-ohio-power-co/","attorney":"Steven T. Nourse and Matthew J. Satterwhite; and Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Kathleen M. Trafford, and Daniel R. Conway, for appellant and crossappellee, Ohio Power Company., Mike DeWine, Attorney General, William L. Wright, Thomas W. McNamee, and Devin D. Parram, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee and crossappellee, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio., McNees., Wallace & Nurick, Samuel C. Randazzo, Frank P. Darr, and Matthew R. Pritchard, for appellee and cross-appellant, Industrial Energy Users-Ohio.","caseName":"In re Fuel Adjustment Clauses for Columbus S. Power Co. & Ohio Power Co. (Slip Opinion)","caseNameFull":"In Re Fuel Adjustment Clauses for Columbus Southern Power Company and Ohio Power Company; Ohio Power Company, Appellant and Cross-Appellee; Industrial Energy Users-Ohio, Appellee and Cross-Appellant; Public Utilities Commission, Appellee and Cross-Appellee","citation":["2014 Ohio 3764","140 Ohio St. 3d 352","18 N.E.3d 1157"],"citeCount":21,"cluster_id":2723197,"court":"Ohio Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ohio","court_id":"ohio","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-09-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2012-1484","docket_id":1149366,"judge":"O'Connor, Pfeifer, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, O'Neill, Kennedy, French","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:12:52.263505Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T14:38:37.464029Z","score":{"bm25":33.98482}},"neutralCite":"2014 Ohio 3764","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[760401,3785275],"download_url":"http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2014/2014-ohio-3764.pdf","id":2723197,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/09/03/in_re_fuel_adjustment_clauses_for_columbus_s._power_co.__ohio_power_co..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:28:40.921194Z","date_created":"2014-09-03T13:04:46.358900Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e39def07f64c8791045461ad4677e0f38828f14e","snippet":"\n\n\n  O’Connor, C.J.\n \n\n  Summary\n \n\n  {¶ 1} In 2009, the Public Utilities Commission approved the first electric security plan (“ESP”) for the American Electric Power operating companies, Columbus Southern Power Company and Ohio Power Company (hereafter referred to jointly as “AEP” or the “companies”). This ESP was in effect ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2723197],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4483400/in-re-estate-of-sharpe/","attorney":"Holt, Longest, Wall, Blaetz & Moseley, PLLC, Burlington, by W. Phillip Moseley and Peter T. Blaetz, for petitioner-appellant., Oertel, Koonts & Oertel, PLLC, Burlington, by Geoffrey K. Oertel, for respondent-appellee.","caseName":"In Re Estate of Sharpe","caseNameFull":"In RE: ESTATE OF Thomas S. SHARPE, Deceased.","citation":["814 S.E.2d 595","258 N.C. App. 601"],"citeCount":15,"cluster_id":4483400,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-04-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"COA17-1151","docket_id":6352791,"judge":"Tyson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:57:48.230313Z","date_created":"2018-04-04T05:18:06.583975Z","score":{"bm25":32.74159}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1206143,1207765,1212777,1238299,1264659,1303429,1351566,1387847,2396465,3655399,3665065,3673763],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=36576","id":4260653,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/04/03/in_re_sharpeâ.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:49:02.772119Z","date_created":"2018-04-04T05:18:06.588759Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7fc84c08be973b60a68cc1b457eed7b64b317ed5","snippet":"\n\n\n  TYSON, Judge.\n \n\n\n   *602\n  \n\n   I. Background\n  \n\n\n  Thomas S. Sharpe and Alma G. Seward were married on 21 November 2009, and remained married until Thomas S. Sharpe's death on 14 January 2016. Thomas S. Sharpe was 86 years old and Alma G. Seward was 75 years old when they wer","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4260653],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"wills and estates pre-marital agreement contract interpretation waiver of spousal elective share judicial notice review of clerk's findings."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2413903/in-re-educational-testing-service-praxis-principles-of-learning-teaching/","attorney":"Arnold Russell Williams, Singer, LA, pro se., Philip Hessler, Bethel Park, PA, pro se., Christopher A. Vallano, Blum, Reiss & Plaitano Law Offices, Mount Pleasant, PA, for Larry Tavlarides., Wamon C. Buggs, Antioch, TN, pro se., Megan Seeger, Columbus, OH, pro se., B. Brad D. Booker, Cincinnati, OH, pro se., Paul A. Perrea, Cincinnati, OH, pro se., Mark Joseph Smith, Attorney at Law, for Sarah Hash., Abdul Halim Ai, Cincinnati, OH, pro se., A. Stephen Hut, Jr., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Keith M. Pyburn, Jr., Fisher & Phillips, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Educational Testing Services, Inc., Patrick A. Juneau, Juneau Law Firm, Lafayette, LA, pro se., Jeffery N. Luthi, One Columbus Circle, NE, Washington, DC, pro se.","caseName":"In Re Educational Testing Service Praxis Principles of Learning & Teaching: Grades 7-12 Litigation","caseNameFull":"In Re EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE PRAXIS PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING: GRADES 7-12 LITIGATION","citation":["517 F. Supp. 2d 832","2007 WL 1557337"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":2413903,"court":"District Court, E.D. Louisiana","court_citation_string":"E.D. La.","court_id":"laed","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-05-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"MDL 1643","docket_id":2286259,"judge":"Sarah S. Vance","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:28:43.304940Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:09:06.918998Z","score":{"bm25":32.19856}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3312,"cites":[7100,8600,23000,30783,111693,524507,572640,705085,719616,772909,780861,1400500,1447463,1450881,1467371,1645624,1768361,1955242,1959332,1981575,2106303,2155451,2181002,2188403,2296323,2328516,2340882,2348604,2379893,2380119,2381872,2563434,2564279,2572259,2577740,3682907,3709034,3744750,3746408],"download_url":null,"id":2413903,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:22:47.932189Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:25:44.619998Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6d68d7b90155e11af8b7187cf6349fffc60267a2","snippet":"\n517 F.Supp.2d 832 (2007)\nIn re EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE PRAXIS PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING AND TEACHING: GRADES 7-12 LITIGATION.\nThis Document Relates to the Following Cases: Civil Action Nos. 05-282, 05-2155, 06-6107, and 06-11276.\nMDL No. 1643.\nUnited States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.\nMay 29, 2007.\n*833 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2413903],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4694283/abortion-statutory-interpretation-whether-section-20-208-of-the/","attorney":"","caseName":"Abortion Statutory Interpretation –Whether Section 20-208 of the Health-General Article Prohibits Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse Midwives, and Physician Assistants from Providing Medication Abortions – Whether the Same Statute Prohibits Physician Assistants from Performing Surgical Abortions","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4694283,"court":"Maryland Attorney General Reports","court_citation_string":"Md. Att'y Gen.","court_id":"mdag","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-01-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"105 OAG 003","docket_id":16680468,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:57:47.336448Z","date_created":"2020-01-10T21:05:43.091208Z","score":{"bm25":32.145107}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104631,108713,112786,308641,884911,1088006,1469221,1482054,1529850,1547891,1941939,1990492,2074797,2090215,2166385,2185972,2319670,2320321,2334674,2361281,2402252,2403285],"download_url":"http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/Opinions Documents/2020/105oag003 .pdf","id":4471614,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/01/10/abortion_statutory_interpretation_whether_section_20-208_of_the.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:15:47.386876Z","date_created":"2020-01-10T21:05:43.094811Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3c3388098bb045f3e1b71095f2e05941063a2778","snippet":"                           ABORTION\nSTATUTORY INTERPRETATION – WHETHER SECTION 20-208 OF\n    THE HEALTH-GENERAL ARTICLE PROHIBITS NURSE\n    PRACTITIONERS, CERTIFIED NURSE MIDWIVES, AND\n    PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS FROM PROVIDING MEDICATION\n    ABORTIONS – WHETHER THE SAME STATUTE PROHIBITS\n    PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS FROM PERFORMING SURGICAL\n    ABORTIONS\n                         January 10, 2020\nThe Honorable Ariana Kelly\nMaryland House of Delegates\n      You have requested our opinion on two question","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4471614],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10760999/interpretation-of-federal-means-tested-public-benefit-in-the-personal/","attorney":"","caseName":"Interpretation of \"Federal Means-Tested Public Benefit\" in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10760999,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":"FS","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-12-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":72054575,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-18T19:00:43.649251Z","date_created":"2025-12-18T19:00:43.557056Z","score":{"bm25":31.986607}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100599,111221,111377,111840,112931,117902,145888,868381,2811845,4405071,4542244,6496181,9422605,9427633,9430879,9432913,9433307,9434163,9434536,9434583,9435096,9485126,9501447,9842104,9873454,9887864,9888645,10515644,10816961],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1421356/dl","id":11227584,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/12/16/interpretation_of_federal_means-tested_public_benefit_in_the_personal.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-18T19:01:29.580218Z","date_created":"2025-12-18T19:00:43.561202Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fda75d18429ba9fc05c0c90305e40377891e9e62","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n         Interpretation of “Federal Means-Tested Public\n        Benefit” in the Personal Responsibility and Work\n             Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996\nThis Office concluded in 1997 that the phrase “Federal means-tested public benefit,” as\n  used in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of\n  1996, could permissibly be read to include only benefits administered under manda-\n  tory (but not discretionary) federal spending programs. We ther","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11227584],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This Office concluded in 1997 that the phrase \"Federal means-tested public benefit,\" as used in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, could permissibly be read to include only benefits administered under mandatory (but not discretionary) federal spending programs. We therefore deferred to two agencies' interpretation under the Chevron framework. Having been asked to reconsider in view of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), we now conclude that the best reading of \"Federal means-tested public benefit\" is its plain meaning and withdraw our earlier opinion."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4342183/applicability-of-anti-discrimination-statutes-to-the-presidio-trust/","attorney":"","caseName":"Applicability of Anti-Discrimination Statutes to the Presidio Trust","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4342183,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2004-06-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":4574966,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:23:50.765974Z","date_created":"2017-01-27T22:40:02.365308Z","score":{"bm25":30.450293}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[105289,122259,186089,387364,9415762,9426412,9427603,9430583,9432016,9434057,9883113],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2004/06/31/op-olc-v028-p0084_0.pdf","id":4119444,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2004/06/22/applicability_of_anti-discrimination_statutes_to_the_presidio_trust.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:11:53.449191Z","date_created":"2017-01-27T22:40:02.372167Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d1791fbdd86a6f9af2309fe95c24bd3c7f9de965","snippet":"                      Applicability of Anti-Discrimination\n                        Statutes to the Presidio Trust\nThe issue the Presidio Trust has presented is of the sort that Executive Order 12146 calls upon the\n  Attorney General, and hence the Office of Legal Counsel, to resolve.\nThe Presidio Trust is exempt from section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and section\n  15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to the extent that these statutes apply to\n  the appoin","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4119444],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7150725/in-re-judicial-interpretation-of-1975-senate-enrolled-act-no-441/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Judicial Interpretation of 1975 Senate Enrolled Act No. 441","caseNameFull":"In The Matter of Judicial Interpretation of 1975 Senate Enrolled Act No. 441","citation":["263 Ind. 350","332 N.E.2d 97","1975 Ind. LEXIS 313"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":7150725,"court":"Indiana Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ind.","court_id":"ind","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1975-08-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 875S182A","docket_id":64139088,"judge":"Givan","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T12:51:06.795883Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T07:16:56.039252Z","score":{"bm25":30.428886}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7059405,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T10:16:11.700016Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T07:16:56.045691Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nGivan, C.J.\nTraditionally the Supreme Court does not issue opinions sua sponte. However, in exceptional cases such as Senate Enrolled Act No. 441, wherein questions are presented which directly concern this Court, we have no choice but to issue an opinion stating our interpretation of the statute.\nIn Ex Parte Griffiths, Reporter, (1889) 118 Ind. 83, 20 N.E. 513, the reporter petitioned the C","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7059405],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10161730/in-re-marriage-of-shayan/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Marriage of Shayan","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10161730,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"B323455","docket_id":69313414,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-10-25T22:01:52.556532Z","date_created":"2024-10-25T22:01:52.421557Z","score":{"bm25":28.328627}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2283629,2648558,4174357,5666081],"download_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B323455.PDF","id":10628326,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/25/in_re_marriage_of_shayan.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T18:28:53.018220Z","date_created":"2024-10-25T22:01:52.428303Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"530e8e73929334bbaae915d0612bc3bdab6042c7","snippet":"Filed 10/25/24\n                 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION\n\nIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n                       DIVISION EIGHT\n\n\n In re the Marriage of ZOHREH     B323455\n MCINTYRE and SHAHRIYAR\n SHAYAN.\n\n ZOHREH MCINTYRE                  (Los Angeles County\n SHAYAN,                          Super. Ct. No. SD025162)\n\n        Respondent,\n\n        v.\n\n SHAHRIYAR SHAYAN,\n\n        Appellant.\n\n\n      APPEAL from an order of the Superior","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10628326],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9480008/in-re-estate-of-thomas-lee-griffin/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Estate of Thomas Lee Griffin","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9480008,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2023-00508-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":68297944,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:26:30.874763Z","date_created":"2024-02-29T21:11:30.832167Z","score":{"bm25":27.925146}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118497,1055805,2401970,3488213,4322758,8056196,8298842],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/InReEstateofThomasLeeGriffinOPN.pdf","id":9946621,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/02/29/in_re_estate_of_thomas_lee_griffin.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:21:45.644840Z","date_created":"2024-02-29T21:11:30.834307Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c25d2d848d91b904390e65edb335c9ef5495fc96","snippet":"                                                                                         02/29/2024\n               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                            AT JACKSON\n                               October 17, 2023 Session\n\n                  IN RE ESTATE OF THOMAS LEE GRIFFIN\n\n                  Appeal from the Probate Court for Shelby County\n                     No. PR-03748       Joe Townsend, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9946621],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This appeal arises from a petition for declaratory judgment concerning a quit claim deed. By the quit claim deed, the grantor, now deceased, conveyed to the respondent an undivided one-half interest in the property. Following the property description and derivation clause, the deed expressly provided that it was the intention of the grantor and the grantee to create a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship. The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the survivorship language in the deed was sufficient to create a right of survivorship in the respondent. The trial court entered an order denying the respondent's motion for summary judgment and granting the petition for declaratory judgment in favor of the petitioner. The respondent appealed. We reverse."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10581407/in-the-matter-of-the-succession-of-otis-thomas/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Succession of Otis Thomas","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10581407,"court":"Louisiana Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"La. Ct. App.","court_id":"lactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-12-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"55,973-CA","docket_id":70237195,"judge":"PITMAN; COX; ROBINSON","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-05-09T16:02:33.147960Z","date_created":"2025-05-09T16:01:39.990942Z","score":{"bm25":27.888525}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[7612660,7617441,7620513],"download_url":"https://www.la2nd.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/55973ca.pdf","id":11047995,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/12/18/in_the_matter_of_the_succession_of_otis_thomas.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T20:28:42.615556Z","date_created":"2025-05-09T16:01:40.003330Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"736a153ed48559e738a0e5f20d03fdb74a188c48","snippet":"                                            Judgment rendered December 18, 2024.\n                                            Application for rehearing may be filed\n                                            within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,\n                                            La. C.C.P.\n\n                             No. 55,973-CA\n\n                        COURT OF APPEAL\n                         SECOND CIRCUIT\n                       STATE OF LOUISIANA\n\n                             *","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11047995],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10640539/in-matter-of-petition-of-featherfall-restoration/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Matter of Petition of Featherfall Restoration","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10640539,"court":"Court of Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md.","court_id":"md","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17o/24","docket_id":70906822,"judge":"Gould","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-24T20:07:43.580134Z","date_created":"2025-07-24T20:07:43.356472Z","score":{"bm25":27.822725}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1435815,1495548,1925272,2058989,2070848,2085649,2086406,2170460,2178061,2190632,2206261,2304474,2315330,2344420,2392359,3482572,3486431,3489694,5142296,6336150,6498548,6664210,6666859,7889804,7889835,7891230,7893003,7895740,7898413,7917463,9348965,9375073,9774135,10487571,10515242,10515286,10546414],"download_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2025/17a24o.pdf","id":11107126,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/24/in_matter_of_petition_of_featherfall_restoration.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:22:23.204569Z","date_created":"2025-07-24T20:07:43.362383Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"517623155a69201de56224a921db2f538e03ff27","snippet":"In the Matter of the Petition of Featherfall Restoration, LLC, No. 17, September Term,\n2024. Opinion by Gould, J.\n\n\nINSURANCE POLICIES ‒ CHOSE IN ACTION ‒ POST-LOSS ASSIGNMENTS –\nANTI-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSE\n\nThe Supreme Court of Maryland held that a post-loss claim for money payments under a\npolicy is a chose in action, and, therefore, an assignable property right separate from the\npolicy itself. Therefore, an insurance policy’s anti-assignment clause prohibiting\nassignments of “this policy” does not","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11107126],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4412080/in-re-estate-of-wanda-joyce-watkins/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Estate Of Wanda Joyce Watkins","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4412080,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-07-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2016-02388-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":6125520,"judge":"Judge Arnold B. Goldin, Jr.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:37:54.886738Z","date_created":"2017-07-25T19:16:41.900055Z","score":{"bm25":27.589096}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8274,"cites":[1053647,1058249,1502849,1517361,1783588,3890545],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/in_re__estate_of_wanda_joyce_watkins.pdf","id":4189333,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/07/25/in_re_estate_of_wanda_joyce_watkins.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:59:31.957953Z","date_created":"2017-07-25T19:16:41.909716Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8c3a6cd8aef91bf41258ae796b693c86819617c0","snippet":"                                                                                            07/25/2017\n                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                               AT KNOXVILLE\n                                        June 20, 2017 Session\n\n                     IN RE ESTATE OF WANDA JOYCE WATKINS\n\n                      Appeal from the Probate Court for Loudon County\n                              No. 4455    Rex Alan Dale, Judge\n                          ________________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4189333],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This appeal involves the interpretation and enforcement of a will executed by Wanda Joyce Watkins (\"the Decedent\").1 Specifically at issue is a provision bequeathing the residue and remainder of the Decedent's estate to her prior husband, Mr. John Vance (\"Mr. Vance\"). Although Mr. Vance's children (\"the Vance children\") claimed entitlement to the residuary estate by virtue of the anti-lapse statute codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 32-3-105, the executrix of the estate contended that such a disposition was inconsistent with the Decedent's intent. The trial court agreed with the position of the executrix and rejected the Vance children's claim to receive under the will. The trial court also held that portions of the respective parties' attorney's fees should be paid by the estate. Although we reverse the trial court's decision regarding the application of the anti-lapse statute, we affirm its order as it pertains to the assessment of attorney's fees."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10589799/in-re-marriage-of-tronsrue/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Marriage of Tronsrue","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 IL 130596"],"citeCount":12,"cluster_id":10589799,"court":"Illinois Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ill.","court_id":"ill","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-05-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"130596","docket_id":70339983,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-05-22T14:05:35.580828Z","date_created":"2025-05-22T14:05:35.453554Z","score":{"bm25":27.543175}},"neutralCite":"2025 IL 130596","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112446,2012281,2036405,2053493,2085088,2111018,2125189,2190707,2232278,2644002,2743357,2782861,3145239,3156068,3417800,4154987,5127929,5127947,6320242,6983394,9297956,9419136,9431681,9520511,9948807,9948808],"download_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/a1c27a8c-ff99-403f-b542-d56f9535620b/file","id":11056387,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/22/in_re_marriage_of_tronsrue.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T13:52:31.309314Z","date_created":"2025-05-22T14:05:35.461958Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8dd4c06d1578d476242ce66995a205f9ffbf58fa","snippet":"                                      2025 IL 130596\n\n\n\n                                         IN THE\n                                SUPREME COURT\n                                            OF\n                          THE STATE OF ILLINOIS\n\n\n\n\n                            (Docket No. 130596, 130597 cons.)\n\n               In re MARRIAGE OF ELSA M. TRONSRUE, Appellee, and\n                        GEORGE M. TRONSRUE III, Appellant.\n\n\n                                Opinion filed May 22, 2025.\n\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11056387],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9416252/in-the-matter-of-the-estate-of-shepherd/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SHEPHERD","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 OK CIV APP 24"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9416252,"court":"Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla. Civ. App.","court_id":"oklacivapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":67641378,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:10:50.388993Z","date_created":"2023-07-27T17:08:36.300802Z","score":{"bm25":27.537811}},"neutralCite":"2023 OK CIV APP 24","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=494777","id":9411728,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/06/22/in_the_matter_of_the_estate_of_shepherd.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:28:21.763065Z","date_created":"2023-07-27T17:08:36.303362Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1f8eecf244ae880b5ad55292f025aaf662591dc2","snippet":"\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SHEPHERD2023 OK CIV APP 24Case Number: 120182Decided: 06/22/2023Mandate Issued: 07/26/2023DIVISION IVTHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION IV\nCite as: 2023 OK CIV APP 24, __ P.3d __\n\n\t\t\t\t\nIN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PRISCELLA ELAINE SHEPHERD, deceased.\nMARY HELE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9411728],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9370614/in-re-estate-of-reeder/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Estate of Reeder","caseNameFull":"","citation":["217 N.E.3d 1071","466 Ill. Dec. 795","2023 IL App (3d) 210361"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":9370614,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-01-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"3-21-0361","docket_id":66758711,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:31:05.666529Z","date_created":"2023-01-25T20:04:37.795673Z","score":{"bm25":27.016163}},"neutralCite":"2023 IL App (3d) 210361","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2085545,2133801,2161608,2167916,3135910],"download_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/8c525cc6-26f6-41e9-b374-39a18d0e12e2/file","id":9366090,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/01/25/in_re_estate_of_reeder.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:31:05.413165Z","date_created":"2023-01-25T20:04:37.798199Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1cbe99ff9ac605f4b17454b220e8e1c3522766ed","snippet":"                                           2023 IL App (3d) 210361\n\n                               Opinion filed January 25, 2023\n     _____________________________________________________________________________\n\n                                                     IN THE\n\n                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS\n\n                                               THIRD DISTRICT\n\n                                                      2023\n\n      In re ESTATE OF RONALD A.      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9366090],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10581408/in-the-matter-of-the-succession-of-mabel-lawrence-thomas/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Succession of Mabel Lawrence Thomas","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10581408,"court":"Louisiana Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"La. Ct. App.","court_id":"lactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-12-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"55,972-CA","docket_id":70237196,"judge":"PITMAN; COX; ROBINSON","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-05-09T16:02:33.239743Z","date_created":"2025-05-09T16:01:40.644169Z","score":{"bm25":26.986921}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[7612660,7617441,7620513],"download_url":"https://www.la2nd.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/55972ca.pdf","id":11047996,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/12/18/in_the_matter_of_the_succession_of_mabel_lawrence_thomas.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T20:28:42.601416Z","date_created":"2025-05-09T16:01:40.654664Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ab85c2bc2c617a09cdc787b0a0ed4a1754d2647c","snippet":"                                            Judgment rendered December 18, 2024.\n                                            Application for rehearing may be filed\n                                            within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,\n                                            La. C.C.P.\n\n                             No. 55,972-CA\n\n                        COURT OF APPEAL\n                         SECOND CIRCUIT\n                       STATE OF LOUISIANA\n\n                          ****","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11047996],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9449831/in-the-matter-of-the-estate-of-shepherd/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SHEPHERD","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 OK CIV APP 24"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9449831,"court":"Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla. Civ. App.","court_id":"oklacivapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2023 OK CIV APP 24","docket_id":68020375,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:19:22.822427Z","date_created":"2023-12-06T19:09:43.599248Z","score":{"bm25":26.903048}},"neutralCite":"2023 OK CIV APP 24","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2630621],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=494777","id":9907656,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/06/22/in_the_matter_of_the_estate_of_shepherd_6.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T09:14:41.095756Z","date_created":"2023-12-06T19:09:43.606433Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7dee2a02f6c42a7c0cd7bb7c6f14a2542fb2632a","snippet":"\n\t\t\nOSCN Found Document:IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SHEPHERD\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n  \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPrevious Case\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTop Of Index\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tThis Point in Index\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCitationize\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tNext Case\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPrint Only\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9907656],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}