{"count":2335,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yMS4zMDA3NjQmcz01ODEwMTk4JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDgtMjImcD0y&q=MATERIAL+MODIFICATION+OF+PRINCIPAL+OBLIGATION+DISCHARGE+OF+SURETY&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7860901/use-of-the-heroes-act-of-2003-to-cancel-the-principal-amounts-of-student/","attorney":"","caseName":"Use of the HEROES Act of 2003 to Cancel the Principal Amounts of Student Loans","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7860901,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-08-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":64933142,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:12.460788Z","date_created":"2022-08-30T15:00:07.701543Z","score":{"bm25":51.76567}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[48289,85272,112068,112852,117902,212969,798260,931121,4256633,4518659,9431344,9433009,9434047,9434985,9435317,9435471,9489704,9873454,9889182],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1528451/download","id":7804767,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/08/23/use_of_the_heroes_act_of_2003_to_cancel_the_principal_amounts_of_student_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T23:46:14.145076Z","date_created":"2022-08-30T15:00:07.732230Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b2af303c8268c1870132a51ff5b114f93e9a4146","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n              Use of the HEROES Act of 2003 to Cancel\n               the Principal Amounts of Student Loans\nThe Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-76,\n  117 Stat. 904, grants the Secretary of Education authority to reduce or eliminate the\n  obligation to repay the principal balance of federal student loan debt, including on a\n  class-wide basis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, provided all other require-\n  ments of the statute are","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7804767],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-76, 117 Stat. 904, grants the Secretary of Education authority to reduce or eliminate the obligation to repay the principal balance of federal student loan debt, including on a class-wide basis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, provided all other requirements of the statute are satisfied."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7859302/use-of-the-heroes-act-of-2003-to-cancel-the-principal-amounts-of-student/","attorney":"","caseName":"Use of the HEROES Act of 2003 to Cancel the Principal Amounts of Student Loans","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7859302,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-08-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":64917438,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:12.252792Z","date_created":"2022-08-24T17:00:08.600920Z","score":{"bm25":50.451565}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[48289,85272,112068,112852,117902,212969,798260,931121,4256633,4518659,9431344,9433009,9434047,9434985,9435317,9435471,9489704,9873454,9889182],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1528451/download","id":7803168,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/08/23/use_of_the_heroes_act_of_2003_to_cancel_the_principal_amounts_of_student.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T23:45:47.507722Z","date_created":"2022-08-24T17:00:08.618943Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c3d1d9b4c2e5f0341b98a1956e3f5fea4852177b","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n              Use of the HEROES Act of 2003 to Cancel\n               the Principal Amounts of Student Loans\nThe Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-76,\n  117 Stat. 904, grants the Secretary of Education authority to reduce or eliminate the\n  obligation to repay the principal balance of federal student loan debt, including on a\n  class-wide basis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, provided all other require-\n  ments of the statute are","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7803168],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-76, 117 Stat. 904, grants the Secretary of Education authority to reduce or eliminate the obligation to repay the principal balance of federal student loan debt, including on a class-wide basis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, provided all other requirements of the statute are satisfied."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10270618/graham-construction-services-inc-and-travelers-casualty-and-surety/","attorney":"","caseName":"Graham Construction Services, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. City of Corpus Christi","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10270618,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi","court_id":"txctapp13","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-11-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"13-22-00536-CV","docket_id":69360996,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:19:51.617484Z","date_created":"2024-11-09T20:10:22.102068Z","score":{"bm25":33.383583}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2334013,2355487,2390832,2820400,3080345,5285827,5288243,6109064],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=71695&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa13%5cOpinion","id":10737208,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/07/graham_construction_services_inc._and_travelers_casualty_and_surety_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:19:51.627529Z","date_created":"2024-11-09T20:10:22.104168Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7ecaba3be8b912b849c517c34e855cebae8db20a","snippet":"                           NUMBER 13-22-00536-CV\n\n                             COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n\n                      CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG\n\n\nGRAHAM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.\nAND TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND\nSURETY COMPANY,                                                              Appellants,\n\n                                            v.\n\nCITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,                                                        Appellee.\n\n\n         ON ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10737208],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10310248/graham-construction-services-inc-and-travelers-casualty-and-surety/","attorney":"","caseName":"Graham Construction Services, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. City of Corpus Christi","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10310248,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi","court_id":"txctapp13","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-12-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"13-22-00536-CV","docket_id":69360996,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:21:13.299609Z","date_created":"2025-01-08T18:29:25.976245Z","score":{"bm25":33.295654}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2334013,2355487,2390832,2820400,3080345,5285827,5288243,6109064],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaID=afde3f20-3c89-4eff-b4fa-c4227253374d","id":10776836,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/12/30/graham_construction_services_inc._and_travelers_casualty_and_surety.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:21:13.290409Z","date_created":"2025-01-08T18:29:25.978816Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"529943fa5e4f03eb2af06258c8b67a8009ce0d1e","snippet":"                         NUMBER 13-22-00536-CV\n\n                            COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n\n                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG\n\n\nGRAHAM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.\nAND TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND\nSURETY COMPANY,                                                          Appellants,\n\n                                          v.\n\nCITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,                                                     Appellee.\n\n\n        ON APPEAL FROM THE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10776836],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4601584/western-surety-company-v-us-engineering-company/","attorney":"","caseName":"Western Surety Company v. U.S. Engineering Company","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4601584,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-03-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2015-0327","docket_id":14755695,"judge":"Judge Tanya S. Chutkan","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:31:03.818674Z","date_created":"2019-03-20T17:00:38.780816Z","score":{"bm25":30.694174}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":620,"cites":[111620,111719,111722,185776,186596,187468,380920,389933,1509778,1555485,1966003,2394481],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv0327-49","id":4378837,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/03/20/western_surety_company_v._u.s._engineering_company.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:11:25.595276Z","date_created":"2019-03-20T17:00:38.800706Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6da078605631a03e95d2ff728176ef51619c68ca","snippet":"                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n                                                )\nWESTERN SURETY COMPANY,                         )\n                                                )\n              Plaintiff,                        )\n                                                )\n      v.                                        )       Civil Action No. 15-cv-00327 (TSC)\n                                          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4378837],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7335503/travelers-cas-sur-co-of-am-v-dirtworks-inc-of-vicksburg/","attorney":"*681Alec M. Taylor, Krebs Farley, PLLC, Flowood, MS, Cassandra Hewlings, Pro Hac Vice, Craig N. Mangum, David J. Krebs, Pro Hac Vice, Krebs Farley, PLLC, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff., Dorsey R. Carson, Jr., Lindsay K. Roberts, Carson Law Group, PLLC, Jackson, MS, for Defendants.","caseName":"Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Dirtworks, Inc. of Vicksburg","caseNameFull":"TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. DIRTWORKS, INC. OF VICKSBURG HHG, LLC and Harry G. Gilliland, Jr.","citation":["375 F. Supp. 3d 680"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7335503,"court":"District Court, S.D. Mississippi","court_citation_string":"S.D. Miss.","court_id":"mssd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-03-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CAUSE NO. 3:17cv897-LG-LRA","docket_id":64323990,"judge":"Guirola","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:40:39.334387Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:21:17.614240Z","score":{"bm25":27.770292}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7253423,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:55:46.667071Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:21:17.620484Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nLOUIS GUIROLA, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\nBEFORE THE COURT is the [49] Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Dirtworks, Inc. of Vicksburg (\"Dirtworks\"); HHG, LLC; and Harry H. Gilliland, Jr. Defendants' Motion seeks dismissal of all claims against HHG, dismissal of the fraud claim against Gilliland, and dismissal of the request for specific performance of the collateral demand by Plaintiff Travelers Casualty and Surety Compan","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7253423],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1904874/kiski-area-school-district-v-mid-state-surety-corp/","attorney":"Joseph H. Bucci, Esq., Robert Joseph Burnett, Esq., Samuel Herman Simon, Esq., Houston Harbaugh, P.C., Pittsburgh, for Mid-State Surety Corporation, a Michigan Corporation., Samuel Joseph Arena, Jr., Esq., Karl Stewart Myers, Esq., Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, L.L.P., Harrisburg, for The Surety & Fidelity Association of America., Arnd N. von Waldow, Esq., Kim M. Watterson, Esq., James Michael Doerfler, Esq., Reed Smith, L.L.P., Pittsburgh, for Kiski Area School District, a Municipal Authority.","caseName":"Kiski Area School District v. Mid-State Surety Corp.","caseNameFull":"KISKI AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Municipal Authority v. MID-STATE SURETY CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, and Lanmark, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Appeal of Mid-State Surety Corporation, a Michigan Corporation","citation":["967 A.2d 368","600 Pa. 444","2008 Pa. LEXIS 2260"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":1904874,"court":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa.","court_id":"pa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2008-12-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"27 WAP 2008","docket_id":1507263,"judge":"Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Greenspan","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T07:18:00.547928Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T17:15:24.831621Z","score":{"bm25":27.5028}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9694023,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T21:57:11.735398Z","date_created":"2023-08-25T17:19:08.273923Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJustice TODD,\nconcurring.\nI concur in the Majority’s disposition of the instant case, as I agree Mid-State’s obligations with regard to the School District were discharged by the School District’s release of Lanmark. I write separately, however, because I believe this Court should adopt expressly Section 39 of the Restatement (Third) of Suretyship and Guaranty (“Restatement”), and that under Section 39, summ","type":"concurrence-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[1512677,1521778,1529622,1897340,2361509,3845242,6234710,6241495,6255139],"download_url":null,"id":1904874,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T13:49:05.006932Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T07:46:39.937633Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1402468944b4e01b47e40a95a2ddd5a0bd1c45f3","snippet":"\n967 A.2d 368 (2008)\nKISKI AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Municipal Authority\nv.\nMID-STATE SURETY CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, and Lanmark, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation\nAppeal of Mid-State Surety Corporation, a Michigan Corporation.\nNo. 27 WAP 2008.\nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania.\nArgued September 9, 2008.\nDecided December 17, 2008.\nJoseph H.","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[5515,5522,5527,5533,5545,5563,5570],"panel_names":["Max Baer","Ronald D. Castille","J. Michael Eakin","Jane Cutler Greenspan","Seamus P. McCaffery","Thomas G. Saylor","Debra Todd"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1904874,9694022,9694023],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7300593/colonial-surety-co-v-united-states/","attorney":"Larry L. Miller, Duncannon, PA, for plaintiff., Sarah M. Bienkowski, Trial Attorney, with whom were Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. Ellen M. Evans, Senior Trial Attorney, Naval Litigation Office, Washington, DC, of counsel.","caseName":"Colonial Surety Co. v. United States","caseNameFull":"COLONIAL SURETY CO. v. The UNITED STATES, and Third-party v. DME Construction Associates, Third-party","citation":["108 Fed. Cl. 622","2013 U.S. Claims LEXIS 36","2013 WL 392473"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":7300593,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-01-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 10-820 C","docket_id":64289070,"judge":"Hewitt","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:31:11.913801Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T03:32:30.687454Z","score":{"bm25":26.833824}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7218456,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T20:52:45.260789Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T03:32:30.700904Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nCross-Motions for Summary Judgment; Duties of the Government as Stakeholder; Equitable Subrogation; Breach of Contract\n\nOPINION\n\nHEWITT, Chief Judge\nColonial Surety Company (Colonial or plaintiff) was the surety for DME Construction Associates (DME or third-party defendant) on a construction contract for roof replacement with the Department of the Navy (the Navy, defendant or ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7218456],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9469841/national-council-of-agricultural-employers-v-united-states-department-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"National Council of Agricultural Employers v. United States Department of Labor","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9469841,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2022-3569","docket_id":66819633,"judge":"Judge Rudolph Contreras","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:24:05.034480Z","date_created":"2024-01-29T19:01:55.851500Z","score":{"bm25":24.202925}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":710,"cites":[118096,153004,185061,185706,258827,339969,375898,422188,601776,621628,664617,708160,721439,785147,2532973,2647450,2659444,2660637,2663459,2678313,2756285,2807856,3173400,3185267,3217526,4033772,4673619,4698685,6800756,9322867,9394789,9429294,9432577,9433357,9433887,9435153,9435380,9440648,9477013,9489524,9493311,9823702,9864181,9886222],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2022cv3569-35","id":9927679,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/29/national_council_of_agricultural_employers_v._united_states_department_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T11:48:48.764174Z","date_created":"2024-01-29T19:01:55.894092Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"39594536af1bb6d4cabba4dee092e42935df36ce","snippet":"                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nNATIONAL COUNCIL OF                                :\nAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYERS,                            :\n                                                   :\n       Plaintiff,                                  :       Civil Action No.:      22-3569 (RC)\n                                                   :\n       v.                                          :       Re Document Nos.:  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9927679],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2474568/developers-surety-indemnity-co-v-resurrection-baptist-church/","attorney":"Lauren Paeelli McLaughlin, Robert Joseph Dietz, Shannon J. Briglia, Briglia McLaughlin PLLC, Vienna, VA, for Plaintiff., Joseph S. Ferretti, Daniel E. Toomey, Duane Morris LLP, Washington, DC, Sidney S. Friedman, Rosemary E. Allulis, Weinstock Friedman and Friedman PA, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.","caseName":"Developers Surety & Indemnity Co. v. Resurrection Baptist Church","caseNameFull":"DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff v. RESURRECTION BAPTIST CHURCH, Et Al., Defendants","citation":["759 F. Supp. 2d 665","2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127408"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":2474568,"court":"District Court, D. Maryland","court_citation_string":"D. Maryland","court_id":"mdd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-12-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case RWT 10cv1224","docket_id":2341510,"judge":"Roger W. Titus","lexisCite":"2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127408","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:00:34.795497Z","date_created":"2015-10-16T01:35:34.391615Z","score":{"bm25":23.821371}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3236,"cites":[110873,111920,308199,331922,440364,500693,605981,610905,741075,767975,775216,1218802,1596547,1952312,2128109,2128130],"download_url":null,"id":2474568,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:02:19.871900Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:47:17.094330Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"117183dab1e31ea9595e411d21826621964f30f1","snippet":"\n759 F.Supp.2d 665 (2010)\nDEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff\nv.\nRESURRECTION BAPTIST CHURCH, et al., Defendants.\nCase No. RWT 10cv1224.\nUnited States District Court, D. Maryland.\nDecember 1, 2010.\n*667 Lauren Pacelli McLaughlin, Robert Joseph Dietz, Shannon J. Briglia, Briglia McLaughlin PLLC, Vienna, VA, for Plain","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2474568],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5310024/jeppesen-v-bank-of-utah/","attorney":"\n  John D. Luthy, Salt Lake City, and Marty E. Moore, Attorneys for Appellants\n , \n  Bryan H. Booth and John W. Mann, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellee\n ","caseName":"Jeppesen v. Bank of Utah","caseNameFull":"Luke D. JEPPESEN, Appellee, v. BANK OF UTAH, Harry McMurdie, and Shira McMurdie, Appellants.","citation":["2018 UT App 234","438 P.3d 81"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5310024,"court":"Court of Appeals of Utah","court_citation_string":"Utah Ct. App.","court_id":"utahctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-12-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20170062-CA","docket_id":61633710,"judge":"Hagen, Orme, Harris","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:38:43.680457Z","date_created":"2021-12-21T15:10:56.964056Z","score":{"bm25":23.36029}},"neutralCite":"2018 UT App 234","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112617,1188833,1223712,1288195,2518366,2626369,4211390],"download_url":"https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/Jeppesen%20v.%20Bank%20of%20Utah20181220_20170062_234.pdf","id":5138575,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/12/20/jeppesen_v._bank_of_utah.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T23:54:53.546472Z","date_created":"2021-12-21T15:10:56.967814Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bb732e66b7162ff434e64f35a4b6d0a9662b64c6","snippet":"\n\n\n  HAGEN, Judge:\n \n\n  ¶1 Bank of Utah, Harry McMurdie, and Shira McMurdie (collectively, the McMurdies) appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Luke D. Jeppesen (Jeppesen). In 2001, Jeppesen's father, Zane Jeppesen (Zane), persuaded Harry McMurdie (Harry) to invest $500,000 in a real estate project in exchange for a promissory note secured by a trust deed to real prop","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5138575],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8271823/nine-twenty-llc-v-bank-of-the-ozarks/","attorney":"Vaughn & Clements, Jesse L. Vaughn, for appellant., Hartley, Rowe & Fowler, Kenneth B. Crawford, Jeffrey P. Richards, for appellee.","caseName":"Nine Twenty, LLC v. Bank of the Ozarks","caseNameFull":"NINE TWENTY, LLC v. BANK OF THE OZARKS","citation":["337 Ga. App. 180","786 S.E.2d 555","2016 WL 2933430","2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 288"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":8271823,"court":"Court of Appeals of Georgia","court_citation_string":"Ga. Ct. App.","court_id":"gactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-05-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A16A0507","docket_id":65449946,"judge":"McFadden","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:04:38.933969Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T04:58:28.744620Z","score":{"bm25":23.279673}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8237147,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T01:48:59.015154Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T04:58:28.770768Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMcFadden, Judge.\nThis appeal concerns the liability of Donald and Evelyn Ray on their guaranties of certain notes. The Rays argue that the action is barred because the lender failed to seek confirmation of the foreclosure sales of the property securing the notes. But when they executed those guaranties, the Rays waived this condition precedent. The Rays also argue that the amount of the judgment against them is incorrect. We","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8237147],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2880423/ross-rodriguez-attorney-at-law-surety-v-state/","attorney":"","caseName":"Ross Rodriguez, Attorney at Law, Surety v. State","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2880423,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-San Antonio","court_id":"txctapp4","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-03-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"04-08-00525-CV","docket_id":2737450,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T09:11:26.233145Z","date_created":"2015-09-07T06:23:56.138928Z","score":{"bm25":22.824678}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118022,265713,420005,1209850,1469010,1495076,1501701,1565609,1623243,1660116,1690789,2408278,2459981],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=3847&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa04%5cOpinion","id":2880423,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2009/03/11/ross_rodriguez_attorney_at_law_surety_v._state.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T09:11:26.229518Z","date_created":"2015-09-07T05:42:35.504841Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"34ce57f8cdd21cc3302c1b7e861a6a97e84de4e0","snippet":"i          i          i                                                               i      i      i\n\n\n\n\n                                               OPINION\n\n                                          No. 04-08-00525-CV\n\n                              Ross A. RODRIGUEZ, Attorney at Law, Surety,\n                                             Appellant\n\n                                                    v.\n\n                                           STATE of Texas,\n                               ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2880423],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2274757/letke-security-contractors-inc-v-united-states-surety-co/","attorney":"Donald D. Hecht, Baltimore, for appellant., Lucas F. Webster (William M. Huddles, Huddles, Jones, Sorteberg & Dachille, PC, on the brief), Columbia, for appellee.","caseName":"Letke Security Contractors, Inc. v. United States Surety Co.","caseNameFull":"Letke Security Contractors, Inc. v. United States Surety Company","citation":["991 A.2d 1306","191 Md. App. 462","2010 Md. App. LEXIS 47"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":2274757,"court":"Court of Special Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md. Ct. Spec. App.","court_id":"mdctspecapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-03-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"02038, September Term, 2008","docket_id":2161528,"judge":"Zarnoch","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:17:13.341075Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:21:00.057318Z","score":{"bm25":22.619188}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":7501,"cites":[75971,687363,761793,1579755,1614500,1906274,1937952,1965369,1971598,1985007,2078737,2176918,2195866,2242522,2244083,2269119,2283180,2295639,2338350,2348409,2392902,2399788,6257897],"download_url":null,"id":2274757,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:38:57.550157Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:57:14.593940Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"97c413a5d5aeac603c72c34b1e34748878e831e7","snippet":"\n991 A.2d 1306 (2010)\n191 Md. App. 462\nLETKE SECURITY CONTRACTORS, INC.\nv.\nUNITED STATES SURETY COMPANY.\nNo. 02038, September Term, 2008.\nCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland.\nMarch 29, 2010.\n*1307 Donald D. Hecht, Baltimore, for appellant.\nLucas F. Webster (William M. Huddles, Huddles, Jones, Sorteb","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2274757],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2227587/mountbatten-surety-co-v-szabo-contracting-inc/","attorney":"Thomas J. Keevers and Scott D. Barber, both of Riffner, Barber & Scott, EC., of Schaumburg, for appellants., James E DeNardo, William S. Piper, Kristin Dvorsky Tauras, and Tracy McGonigle, all of McKenna Storer, of Chicago, for appellee.","caseName":"Mountbatten Surety Co. v. Szabo Contracting, Inc.","caseNameFull":"MOUNTBATTEN SURETY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SZABO CONTRACTING, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants","citation":["812 N.E.2d 90","285 Ill. Dec. 501","349 Ill. App. 3d 857"],"citeCount":17,"cluster_id":2227587,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2004-06-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2-03-0171","docket_id":71842,"judge":"O'Malley, Grometer, Callum","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T09:53:49.062638Z","date_created":"2015-10-22T18:55:27.695440Z","score":{"bm25":22.412436}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1188879,2020141,2021793,2028587,2061158,2093127,2127767,2167576,2181490,2220605,2234692,2246797],"download_url":null,"id":2227587,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:22:20.749265Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:42:40.191627Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"42c0860ac90a0a630a290a57a48023bdda836d18","snippet":"\n812 N.E.2d 90 (2004)\n349 Ill.App.3d 857\n285 Ill.Dec. 501\nMOUNTBATTEN SURETY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,\nv.\nSZABO CONTRACTING, INC., Szabo Construction, LLC, Frank Szabo, Jr., James C. Szabo, Carla Szabo, and Carl F. Szabo, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 2-03-0171.\nAppellate Court of Illinois, Second District.\nJune 17, 2004.","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2227587],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4907599/aluminum-co-of-america-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co/","attorney":"Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, by Leonard J. Feldman, for appellants., Peery, Hiscock, Pierson, Kingman & Peabody, by Dale Lawrence Kingman; and T Arlen Rumsey, for respondents., John James Leary, Jr. and Terrence Lee Fredrickson, on behalf of Current London First Party Insurer, amicus curiae.","caseName":"Aluminum Co. of America v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.","caseNameFull":"Aluminum Company of America v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company","citation":["140 Wash. 2d 517"],"citeCount":114,"cluster_id":4907599,"court":"Washington Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Wash.","court_id":"wash","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2000-05-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 67340-3","docket_id":60126906,"judge":"Talmadge","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:55:49.342190Z","date_created":"2021-08-12T00:37:35.737099Z","score":{"bm25":22.22506}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4711893,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:16:12.661555Z","date_created":"2021-08-12T00:37:35.768143Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nTalmadge, J.\nWe are asked in this case to apply the law of Pennsylvania to resolve disputes between the Aluminum Company of America, its subsidiary Northwest Alloys, Inc. (Alcoa), and 167 insurers regarding insurance coverage for *521environmental damage under comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies and property insurance policies called differences in conditions (","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4711893],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2305559/cdm-investors-v-travelers-casualty-surety-co/","attorney":"Counsel, Sheuerman, Martini & Tabari and Alan L. Martini for Plaintiffs and Appellants., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Dean J. Kitchens for Defendant and Respondent Travelers Casualty and Surety Company., Selman Breitman, Nicholas Banko, Linda Wendell Hsu and James Tenero for Defendant and Respondent Transamerica Insurance Company.","caseName":"CDM Investors v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.","caseNameFull":"CDM INVESTORS Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY CO. Et Al., Defendants and Respondents","citation":["43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669","139 Cal. App. 4th 1251","36 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20096","2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4490","2006 Daily Journal DAR 6545","2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 786"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":2305559,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2006-05-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"H024142","docket_id":2152555,"judge":"Premo","lexisCite":"2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4490","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:29:46.183190Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:17:29.973793Z","score":{"bm25":21.970335}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":6548,"cites":[1176222,2266323,2595528,2595601,2602430,2631186,5452398],"download_url":null,"id":2305559,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:49:00.696082Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:02:04.689676Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"38fd3c9759e681395d548e28ed0706a8165eca12","snippet":"\n43 Cal.Rptr.3d 669 (2006)\n139 Cal.App.4th 1251\nCDM INVESTORS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,\nv.\nTRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY CO. et al., Defendants and Respondents.\nNo. H024142.\nCourt of Appeal, Sixth District.\nMay 26, 2006.\n*670 Alan L. Martini, Sheuerman, Martini & Tabari, for Plaintiffs/Appellan","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2305559],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10604538/millet-v-district-of-columbia/","attorney":"","caseName":"Millet v. District of Columbia","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10604538,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2023-0572","docket_id":70534775,"judge":"Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-13T21:01:13.327521Z","date_created":"2025-06-13T21:01:13.239600Z","score":{"bm25":21.762302}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":9133,"cites":[23151,184363,187303,187408,628034,663691,703218,778170,1193584,1266518,1454597,1524368,1533844,1536940,1543806,1645081,1924630,1961713,1981747,1997911,2115058,2183176,2202036,2264756,2279590,2289607,2290945,2296591,2359615,2381519,2382985,2386462,2396089,2403045,2408446,2441668,2469928,2629296,2660250,2663495,2750925,2772688,2805146,2917528,3189138,3209927,4089706,4109959,4193084,4195259,4238064,4435759,4450227,4699126,4966971,7247294,7247373,7248137,7248842,7249603,7250013,8182756,8700360,8706970,8744504,8754805,9387567,9428907,9430238,9431666,9435068,9435339,9437681,9438064,9500600,9503202,9535668,9638990,9697801,9698982,9700285,9701932,9713159,9728946,9747259,9749008,9766600,9822541,9906271],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cv0572-28","id":11071126,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/13/millet_v._district_of_columbia.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T17:23:57.168380Z","date_created":"2025-06-13T21:01:13.266010Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"32f0455b16e8f38e4e4a1267770e852839926a48","snippet":"                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n    DAVID MILLET,\n\n             Plaintiff,\n\n        v.                                         Case No. 23-cv-00572 (AHA/GMH)\n\n    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,\n\n             Defendants.\n\n\n\n                               MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S\n                           REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION\n\n       Plaintiff David Millet alleges that law enforcement officers violated his rights under","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11071126],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10362523/gerald-metals-llc-v-certain-underwriters-at-international-underwriting/","attorney":"","caseName":"Gerald Metals, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at International Underwriting Assn. of London","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10362523,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC46853","docket_id":69777546,"judge":"Bright; Suarez; Sheldon","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-24T12:03:58.137808Z","date_created":"2025-03-24T12:03:57.736878Z","score":{"bm25":21.64336}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[384711,779651,1484305,1502207,1559455,2091467,2258389,2394025,4181984,4231572,7224136,7229383,7232213,7841948,8680368,9752606,10598447],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP231/AP231.150.pdf","id":10829111,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/25/gerald_metals_llc_v._certain_underwriters_at_international_underwriting.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T09:45:46.283253Z","date_created":"2025-03-24T12:03:57.738617Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9c2796ad291965179cfcc41b624f5ffd01134ef6","snippet":"************************************************\n   The “officially released” date that appears near the\nbeginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be\npublished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it\nis released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the\nbeginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-\nion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-\ncially released” date appearing in the opinion.\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncor","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, where the court, Hon. Charles T. Lee, judge trial referee, The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. Underwriting Assn. of London granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plain- tiffs appealed to this court. Affirmed. Patrick F. Lennon, with whom were Steven R. Win- ters and, on the brief, David S. Hardy and Damian K. Gunningsmith, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Thomas L. Tisdale, with whom were Jamison T. Jedziniak and, on the brief, Timothy J. Nast, for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10829111],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff insureds appealed from the trial court's summary judgment for the defendant insurer on the plaintiffs' claim for a loss related to certain marine cargo insurance policies issued by the defendant. The defendant denied the plaintiffs' claim under the policies, which the plaintiffs filed after they were denied access to certain raw material they had purchased that was ultimately sold to a third party at a court-ordered auction in China. While the present case was pending before the Superior Court, the plaintiffs completed arbitration proceedings with the seller of the material. On appeal to this court, the plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly determined that they were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues of whether the material was stolen and/or misappropriated or seized in light of the arbitrators' findings. Held: The trial court properly concluded that, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the plaintiffs were precluded from arguing that the material was stolen or misappropriated and from disputing that the property was seized by Chinese government authorities, both issues having been actually and necessarily determined by the arbitrators in the arbitration proceedings. The trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judg- ment, as the court properly determined that no genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the plaintiffs suffered ''physical loss or damage'' to the material within the meaning of the policies and that, in any event, the plaintiffs' alleged loss was subject to an exclusion for seizure contained in the policies. Argued September 18, 2024—officially released March 25, 2025"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5810198/fort-bragg-unified-school-district-v-colonial-american-casualty-surety/","attorney":"Counsel, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Marilyn Klinger, James P. Diwik and Joel M. Long for Defendant and Appellant Colonial American Casualty and Surety Company., The Law Offices of Adrienne D. Cohen, Adrienne D. Cohen, Kimberly J. Sami and Elizabeth T. Evans for Defendant and Appellant and for Cross-complainant and Respondent Solano County Roofing, Inc., Bishop, Barry, Drath, Jonathan Gross, Colin Adkins and Sheila T. Addiego for Cross-defendant and Appellant., Stubbs & Leone and Gregory E. Stubbs for Plaintiff and Respondent.","caseName":"Fort Bragg Unified School District v. Colonial American Casualty & Surety Co.","caseNameFull":"FORT BRAGG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and v. COLONIAL AMERICAN CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, and Appellant FORT BRAGG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and v. SOLANO COUNTY ROOFING, INC., and Appellant SOLANO COUNTY ROOFING, INC., Cross-complainant and v. STERLING ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION, Cross-defendant and","citation":["194 Cal. App. 4th 891"],"citeCount":42,"cluster_id":5810198,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-04-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. A127186; No. A127189; No. A127244","docket_id":62167633,"judge":"Margulies","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T06:50:37.741765Z","date_created":"2022-01-12T03:53:42.090265Z","score":{"bm25":21.300764}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[266581,1122806,1141805,1245536,1380773,1393054,1427999,1515111,1937312,2108050,2120332,2120632,2121783,2126343,2132753,2142440,2145937,2159009,2167954,2214342,2215946,2217171,2249862,2252086,2252171,2257047,2257250,2259086,2259382,2260916,2262276,2263245,2265104,2276717,2277264,2281562,2286814,2292160,2295461,2332509,2516520,3305874,5650406,5663535,5664499,9565134],"download_url":null,"id":5665627,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-07T12:50:28.342321Z","date_created":"2022-01-12T03:53:42.116997Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOpinion\nMARGULIES, J.\nThis action was brought by the Fort Bragg Unified School District (District) on behalf of two public agency self-insured risk pools that funded repairs to a District elementary school damaged by rain. The suit sought reimbursement of the repair costs from two contractors and a performance bond surety arising from the contractors’ failure to properly secure the school while replacing portio","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5665627],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}