{"count":175741,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yOS4wMjA1MzUmcz04MDcxMTgwJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMTAtMDkmcD0y&q=NOTICE+AND+PROOF+OF+LOSS+Insurance+Law&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10614148/beaumont-independent-school-district-v-lrg-loss-recovery-group-llc-and/","attorney":"","caseName":"Beaumont Independent School District v. LRG-Loss Recovery Group LLC and Randall Harris","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10614148,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Beaumont","court_id":"txctapp9","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"09-23-00382-CV","docket_id":70589378,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:25:29.907638Z","date_created":"2025-06-20T08:17:17.352592Z","score":{"bm25":35.702187}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[894830,894929,895305,1400009,1450103,1635395,1747812,2106811,2405645,2540604,2773869,2811660,2831513,3073938,4262232,4285231,4396121,5097976,5109225,5110270,5283796,5287416,9512823,9512825,9513084,9620565,9632690,9734786,9772908,9776302,9810951,9824161],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaID=86a51633-d8c5-4fcf-a8a0-5a4274f9974b","id":11080736,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/19/beaumont_independent_school_district_v._lrg-loss_recovery_group_llc_and.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:25:29.903025Z","date_created":"2025-06-20T08:17:17.354522Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"da634eb1a1c43a6c4716548d55b2971aa33e7570","snippet":"                                    In The\n\n                             Court of Appeals\n\n                  Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont\n\n                            ________________\n\n                            NO. 09-23-00382-CV\n                            ________________\n\n      BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant\n\n                                      V.\n\n    LRG-LOSS RECOVERY GROUP LLC AND RANDALL HARRIS,\n                        Appellees\n\n_______________________________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11080736],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2512697/in-re-tremont-securities-law-state-law-insurance-litigation/","attorney":"Andrew J. Entwistle, Richard William Gonnello, Stephen David Oestreich, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Thomas George Ciarlone, Jr., Shalov Stone & Bonner & Ruceo LLP, Jeffrey Michael Haber, Jeffrey D. Lerner, Joseph R. Seidman, Sandy A. Liebhard, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Daniel W. Krasner, Demet Basar, Stacey Theresa Kelly, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Jeffrey Koenig, Spar & Bernstein, PC, Christopher Lometti, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Joel Paul Laitman, Sehoengold & Sporn, P.C., New York, NY, Reed Richard Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley, CA, Robert N Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Florham Park, NJ, Vincent T. Gresham, Vincent T. Gresham, Law Office, Atlanta, GA, David Pastor, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Peter A. Lagorio, Peter A. Lagorio, Law Office, Boston, MA, Claude F. Renaud, Eric Baronet Landry, Van R. May-hall, Jr., Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, LA, David Avi Rosenfeld, Edward Y. Kroub, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Melville, NY, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs., The 2005 Tomchin Family Charitable Trust, pro se., John F. Keane, Jr., pro se., Jamie Benjamin Walton Stecher, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP, Kenneth Ian Schacter, Bingham McCutchen LLP, William Kennedy Dodds, Dechert, LLP, Seth M. Schwartz, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, George Foulke Du Pont, Jamie Benjamin Walton Stecher, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP, Harold Keith Gordon, Jones Day, Carrie Ann Tendler, Jonathan David Cogan, Michael Sangyun Kim, Kobre & Kim LLP, Nicholas Kord Lagemann, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY, David Jeffrey Kanfer, Talisman, Rudin & Delorenz P.C., Brooklyn, NY, Frances S. Cohen, Carol Elisabeth Head, Joseph L. Kociubes, Bingham McCutchen LLP, E. Macey Russell, Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Boston, MA, Mitchell H. Kaplan, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David Adam Kotler, Robert Warren Topp, Dechert, LLP, Princeton, NJ, Geoffrey J. Ritts, Richard Joseph Be-dell, Jr., Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, Thomas K. Cauley, Sidley Austin, LLP, Chicago, IL, Ben V. Seessel, Jeffrey L. Williams, Thomas J. Finn, Jorden Burt LLP, Sims-bury, CT, for Defendants.","caseName":"In Re Tremont Securities Law, State Law & Insurance Litigation","caseNameFull":"In Re TREMONT SECURITIES LAW, STATE LAW AND INSURANCE LITIGATION","citation":["703 F. Supp. 2d 362","2010 WL 1257580"],"citeCount":21,"cluster_id":2512697,"court":"District Court, S.D. New York","court_citation_string":"S.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nysd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-03-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Master File No.: 09 md 2052. No. 08 Civ. 11117(TPG)","docket_id":2379654,"judge":"Griesa","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:26:59.505071Z","date_created":"2015-02-09T16:21:04.486448Z","score":{"bm25":33.712128}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109420,145709,145730,145875,794387,1249351,1253901,1430378,1664201,1753011,1798276,1816528,2303622,2306619,2378589,5537539,5538090,5758329,6069270,6986071,7001236,8961635],"download_url":null,"id":2512697,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:21:48.748237Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T10:04:13.394219Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7705b1d70a292071760e3325b7038e2b26a3f173","snippet":"\n703 F.Supp.2d 362 (2010)\nIn re TREMONT SECURITIES LAW, STATE LAW AND INSURANCE LITIGATION.\nThis Document Relates to: Securities Law Action 08 Civ. 11212(TPG).\nMaster File No.: 09 md 2052. No. 08 Civ. 11117(TPG).\nUnited States District Court, S.D. New York.\nMarch 30, 2010.\n*365 Andrew J. Entwistle, Richard William Gonnello, Stephen Da","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2512697],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10048700/assanah-carroll-v-law-offices-of-maher/","attorney":"","caseName":"Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Maher","caseNameFull":"","citation":["480 Md. 394"],"citeCount":21,"cluster_id":10048700,"court":"Court of Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md.","court_id":"md","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-07-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"11m/21","docket_id":64452373,"judge":"Booth","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-08-22T15:35:46.229633Z","date_created":"2024-08-22T15:35:46.164642Z","score":{"bm25":33.61549}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[562295,1461746,1483284,1514723,1527002,1549585,1549932,1895489,1922148,1931243,1933287,1938838,1942693,1946940,1949537,1966890,1990874,1991412,1995735,2049012,2052713,2192361,2209456,2276794,2310232,2319909,2331606,2376785,2382804,2382876,2403652,2560029,3485067,3485142,4103831,4237679,4351473,5142088,5142114,5142186,7918828,8699651,9762989,9762991,9884225,10487571,10487625,10515281,10515301],"download_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2022/11a21m.pdf","id":10515300,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/28/assanah-carroll_v._law_offices_of_maher_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T20:03:03.130476Z","date_created":"2024-08-22T15:35:46.178383Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dd4bf3487bda6fa2a51fd36276a384c033633fbc","snippet":"Alison Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Edward J. Maher, P.C., et al., Misc. No. 11,\nSeptember Term, 2021, Opinion by Booth, J.\n\n\nLANDLORD AND TENANT—LOCAL LICENSING ORDINANCE—FAILURE\nTO LICENSE PROPERTY—TENANT’S ABILITY TO BRING PRIVATE RIGHT\nOF ACTION UNDER THE MARYLAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT\n(“MCPA”) TO OBTAIN RESTITUTION OF RENT BASED UPON LACK OF\nLICENSURE\n\nArticle 13, § 5-4(a)(2) of the Baltimore City Code, which prohibits a landlord from\ncharging, accepting, retaining, or seeking to col","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10515300],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10317345/estate-of-ajm-appeal-of-lynch-law-group/","attorney":"","caseName":"Estate of A.J.M., Appeal of: Lynch Law Group","caseNameFull":"","citation":["308 A.3d 844","2024 Pa. Super. 4"],"citeCount":12,"cluster_id":10317345,"court":"Superior Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa. Super. Ct.","court_id":"pasuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"962 WDA 2022","docket_id":69558573,"judge":"Bender","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-18T05:40:50.892589Z","date_created":"2025-01-18T05:40:15.801687Z","score":{"bm25":33.599957}},"neutralCite":"2024 Pa. Super. 4","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8224,"cites":[1466057,1929263,1930872,1959800,2069984,2315724,3862606,4313594,4961516,4968886,4968991,6306910,6307674,10783561],"download_url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A18003-23o - 105797971251682639.pdf","id":10783933,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/11/estate_of_a.j.m._appeal_of_lynch_law_group.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:01:48.019514Z","date_created":"2025-01-18T05:40:15.818559Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"428284352e60ca6d37a71d55efe5cc69c12c9cc8","snippet":"J-A18003-23 & J-A18004-23\n\n                             2024 PA Super 4\n\n\n\n ESTATE OF A.J.M., AN            :         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF\n INCAPACITATED PERSON            :              PENNSYLVANIA\n                                 :\n                                 :\n APPEAL OF: THE LYNCH LAW GROUP, :\n LLC                             :\n                                 :\n                                 :\n                                 :         No. 962 WDA 2022\n\n               Appeal fro","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10783933],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7453955/assanah-carroll-v-law-offices-of-maher/","attorney":"","caseName":"Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Maher","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7453955,"court":"Court of Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md.","court_id":"md","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-07-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"11m/21","docket_id":64452373,"judge":"Booth","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T14:12:28.495327Z","date_created":"2022-07-28T16:07:19.614505Z","score":{"bm25":33.20537}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[562295,1461746,1483284,1514723,1527002,1549585,1549932,1895489,1922148,1931243,1933287,1938838,1942693,1946940,1949537,1966890,1990874,1991412,1995735,2049012,2052713,2192361,2209456,2276794,2310232,2319909,2331606,2376785,2382804,2382876,2403652,2560029,3485067,3485142,4103831,4237679,4351473,5142088,5142114,5142186,7918828,8699651,9762989,9762991,9884225,10487571,10487625,10515281],"download_url":"http://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2022/11a21m.pdf","id":7374808,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/28/assanah-carroll_v._law_offices_of_maher.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T00:36:47.985006Z","date_created":"2022-07-28T16:07:19.619100Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"091f7ff25ed71301e9274998b3554b824a9e77fe","snippet":"Alison Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Edward J. Maher, P.C., et al., Misc. No. 11,\nSeptember Term, 2021, Opinion by Booth, J.\n\n\nLANDLORD AND TENANT—LOCAL LICENSING ORDINANCE—FAILURE\nTO LICENSE PROPERTY—TENANT’S ABILITY TO BRING PRIVATE RIGHT\nOF ACTION UNDER THE MARYLAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT\n(“MCPA”) TO OBTAIN RESTITUTION OF RENT BASED UPON LACK OF\nLICENSURE\n\nArticle 13, § 5-4(a)(2) of the Baltimore City Code, which prohibits a landlord from\ncharging, accepting, retaining, or seeking to col","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7374808],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7334368/karimi-v-golden-gate-sch-of-law/","attorney":"*961Morteza Benjamin Ray Karimi, Pflugerville, TX, pro se., Stacey Lynn Leask, Michael Joseph Vartain, Vartain Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.","caseName":"Karimi v. Golden Gate Sch. of Law","caseNameFull":"Morteza Benjamin Ray KARIMI v. GOLDEN GATE SCHOOL OF LAW","citation":["361 F. Supp. 3d 956"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":7334368,"court":"District Court, N.D. California","court_citation_string":"N.D. Cal.","court_id":"cand","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-02-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 17-cv-05702-JCS","docket_id":64322854,"judge":"Spero","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:40:22.937664Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:12:09.484335Z","score":{"bm25":32.545425}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[94291,111620,111719,111722,112792,118176,145738,145875,597891,781004,797965,1175714,1180715,1242947,1319978,1442317,2154906,2248662,2257045,2258883,2274637,2276534,2290877,2538371,2569285,2625648,2626972,2638169,4161532,5665240,5666579,6940925,8408193,8981603],"download_url":null,"id":7252288,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:29:30.067432Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:12:09.497176Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge\nI. INTRODUCTION\nPlaintiff Morteza Benjamin Ray Karimi brought this action against Defendant Golden Gate School of Law (\"Golden Gate\") and its dean, Defendant Anthony Niedwiecki, based on disciplinary action taken against Karimi, including an indefinite interim suspension. The Court previously denied Karimi's motion for a preliminary injunction. Karimi thereaf","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7252288],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4395812/lucy-mundia-v-drendall-law-office-pc/","attorney":"Attorney for Appellant: Benjamin M. Blatt, South Bend, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee: Mark D. Gerth, Michael E. Brown, Sarah A. Hurdle, Kightlinger & Gray, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana","caseName":"Lucy Mundia v. Drendall law Office, P.C.","caseNameFull":"Lucy MUNDIA, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. DRENDALL LAW OFFICE, P.C., Appellee-Defendant","citation":["77 N.E.3d 846","2017 WL 2350921","2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 231"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4395812,"court":"Indiana Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ind. Ct. App.","court_id":"indctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-05-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals Case 71A05-1610-PL-2388","docket_id":6067591,"judge":"Pyle, Brown","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:32:51.982981Z","date_created":"2017-05-31T16:41:14.348151Z","score":{"bm25":31.989756}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112606,852260,852925,852930,853293,2015042,2022413,2039940,2078840,2100763,2150024],"download_url":"http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05311701rp.pdf","id":4173065,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/05/31/lucy_mundia_v._drendall_law_office_p.c..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:48:21.362100Z","date_created":"2017-05-31T16:41:14.354997Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4c7a620644884d4a31f132639c3706f0b4109e77","snippet":"\n\n\n \n   *848\n   \n  Pyle, Judge.\n \n\n  Statement of the Case\n \n\n  Our Indiana Supreme Court has explained that “Indiana’s distinctive summary judgment standard imposes a heavy factual burden on the movant to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact on at least one element of the [non-mo","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4173065],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9368358/aguilar-v-mandarich-law-grp/","attorney":"","caseName":"Aguilar v. Mandarich Law Grp.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9368358,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-01-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"H049860","docket_id":66735614,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T00:58:24.284231Z","date_created":"2023-01-17T20:03:22.724434Z","score":{"bm25":31.18758}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[602804,738574,801920,1356941,1442547,2526422,2600521,4020411,4113483,4166209,4194856,4197275,4418841,4698691,6107229,7798959,8410837,9435108,9484805,9608020,9782265,9800110,9823248,9835330],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H049860.PDF","id":9363834,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/01/17/aguilar_v._mandarich_law_grp..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T07:24:05.904315Z","date_created":"2023-01-17T20:03:22.725679Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6d3a45acdfc9749f62f084df4069910e614aef1e","snippet":"       Filed 1/17/23\n\n                          CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n             IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                            SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n ALEXANDER ZAVAL AGUILAR,                         H049860\n                                                 (Santa Clara County\n        Plaintiff and Appellant,                  Super. Ct. No. 21CV378926)\n\n        v.\n\n MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, et\n al.,\n\n        Defendants and Respondents.\n\n\n\n       In thi","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9363834],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9482838/in-re-syngenta-shields-law/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re: Syngenta (Shields Law)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9482838,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit","court_citation_string":"10th Cir.","court_id":"ca10","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-03-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-3021","docket_id":68327432,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:27:13.806761Z","date_created":"2024-03-11T18:01:04.709067Z","score":{"bm25":31.05865}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118093,145754,161491,164916,165052,166112,166653,169086,169282,169389,170438,185205,213700,216849,218817,597408,738541,781572,811463,811878,814977,1462959,2685304,2709409,2783911,2803709,2820214,2924504,3153543,3155290,3203337,4159108,4162436,4380504,4464216,4494411,4551559,4647936,7360776,7360893,8411055,8413992,8414968,8415188,9006821,9016220,9364119,9375856,9432577,9434856,9437602,9483895,9502773,9502825,9579855,9823248],"download_url":"https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111013297.pdf","id":9949451,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/03/11/in_re_syngenta_shields_law.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T11:03:09.655752Z","date_created":"2024-03-11T18:01:04.710765Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fea8eb90de7d217b36cc41ff00dae2cb2fb5a125","snippet":"Appellate Case: 21-3021    Document: 010111013297   Date Filed: 03/11/2024   Page: 1\n                                                                            FILED\n                                                                United States Court of Appeals\n                                      PUBLISH                           Tenth Circuit\n\n                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                   March 11, 2024\n\n                                                                ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9949451],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/812706/hillsdale-environmental-loss-prevention-inc-v-united-states-army-corps/","attorney":"Melissa Cl Lin Perrella, Natural Resources Defense Council, Santa Monica, CA, and Mark V. Dugan, Dugan Schlozman LLC, Overland Park, KS, for Appellants., Douglas R. Dalgleish, Lathrop & Gage LLP, Kansas City, MO (Matthew K. Cor-bin, Lathrop & Gage LLP, Kansas City, MO, Gus B. Bauman and W. Parker Moore, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., Washington, District of Columbia, and Kathryn F. Kusske and Jay C. Johnson, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Washington, District of Columbia, with him on the brief), for Appellee BNSF Railway Company., Maggie B. Smith, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, Washington, District of Columbia, Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General, and T. Monique Peoples and Kristofor R. Swanson, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, Washington, District of Columbia, and Matthew P. Jeppson, Of Counsel, Assistant District Counsel, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, Kansas City, MO, for Federal Appellees., Derek Schmidt, Attorney General of Kansas, and Jeffrey A. Chanay, Deputy Attorney General, Christopher M. Grünewald, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Kansas Attorney General, Topeka, KS, on the brief for Amicus Curiae State of Kansas, and E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Amicus Curiae State of Oklahoma.","caseName":"Hillsdale Environmental Loss Prevention, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers","caseNameFull":"HILLSDALE ENVIRONMENTAL LOSS PREVENTION, INC.; Kansas Natural Resource Council; Chris Axe; Shelly Axe; Frank Saunders; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp, in His Official Capacity; Colonel Roger A. Wilson, Jr., in His Official Capacity; BNSF Railway Company, Defendants-Appellees. State of Kansas; State of Oklahoma, Amici Curiae","citation":["702 F.3d 1156","42 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20250","75 ERC (BNA) 1673","2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24531","2012 WL 5935949"],"citeCount":66,"cluster_id":812706,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit","court_citation_string":"10th Cir.","court_id":"ca10","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-11-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"11-3210","docket_id":1082944,"judge":"Tymkovich, McKay, Holmes","lexisCite":"2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24531","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T00:34:29.173952Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T14:12:21.863597Z","score":{"bm25":31.044062}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[110953,112255,112256,134751,149005,150191,152035,162325,162330,162578,164404,166922,166930,172098,173333,181860,185915,187124,203404,203599,453385,527668,540907,615771,616890,617923,624788,722496,739140,749442,771609,772245,780570,795489,1322365,1421234,2407601,2504557,2522932],"download_url":"http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-3210.pdf","id":812706,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2012/11/28/hillsdale_environmental_loss_v._united_states_army_corps.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T15:28:20.996037Z","date_created":"2012-11-28T17:24:04Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7d4a8a115186a95d67b88d65325a3b714ba309ab","snippet":"\n\n\n  TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.\n \n\n  This case concerns the construction of a new Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail/truck terminal outside Kansas City, Kansas. Because the preferred site contained streams and wetlands protected under federal law, several groups (collectively, Hillsdale) brought challenges to a dredge and fill permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engine","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[812706],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9481285/skewes-cox-v-georgetown-university-law-center/","attorney":"","caseName":"Skewes-Cox v. Georgetown University Law Center","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9481285,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-03-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2022-0818","docket_id":68311431,"judge":"Judge Carl J. Nichols","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:26:50.356539Z","date_created":"2024-03-05T21:01:18.000627Z","score":{"bm25":30.866116}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8611,"cites":[111383,187515,220174,543709,801440,4125108],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2022cv0818-28","id":9947898,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/03/05/skewes-cox_v._georgetown_university_law_center.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:30:57.996508Z","date_created":"2024-03-05T21:01:18.029946Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"53dcb2afb13bb17d057f2aa19e2ad78b49c5dad8","snippet":"                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\nWILLIAM SKEWES-COX,\n\n              Plaintiff,\n\n      v.                                              Civil Action No. 22-cv-818 (CJN)\n\nGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW\nCENTER, and\n\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF\nEDUCATION,\n\n              Defendants.\n\n\n                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION\n\n       Plaintiff William Skewes-Cox is a former law student suing Georgetown University ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9947898],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10007720/tw-v-new-york-state-board-of-law-examiners/","attorney":"","caseName":"T.W. v. New York State Board of Law Examiners","caseNameFull":"","citation":["110 F.4th 71"],"citeCount":30,"cluster_id":10007720,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":"2023-06-05","dateFiled":"2024-07-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-1661","docket_id":67090055,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:37:31.708929Z","date_created":"2024-07-19T15:00:28.649498Z","score":{"bm25":30.674917}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2430,76932,104057,105221,109574,202306,541948,620711,719727,754643,768066,779423,790597,795129,797960,2377681,2384255,2480796,2520699,3030794,4406333,4518660,4544794,4681640,6966232,8407880,8594097,9414338,9418117,9425645,9428818,9430175,9430229,9431380,9433265,9433494,9433509,9433780,9433864,9433878,9433947,9434044,9434245,9434445,9434602,9434995,9485550,9841762],"download_url":"http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0c3ee3dd-f37a-408f-84e8-48ab999375f6/2/doc/22-1661_opn.pdf","id":10474321,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/07/19/t.w._v._new_york_state_board_of_law_examiners.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T17:57:02.323754Z","date_created":"2024-07-19T15:00:28.651679Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5cc972339b6a8157517ea5ad9992084bcfd15f3e","snippet":"22-1661\nT.W. v. New York State Board of Law Examiners\n\n\n\n\n                                   In the\n           United States Court of Appeals\n                      For the Second Circuit\n\n\n                            August Term, 2022\n                              No. 22-1661\n\n                                    T.W.,\n                             Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n                                       v.\n\n NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, DIANE BOSSE, JOHN J.\n MCALARY, BRYAN WILLIAMS,","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10474321],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8726764/crafton-v-law-firm-of-levine/","attorney":"Marshall S. Meyers, Weisberg & Meyers LLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs., Adam S. Bazelon, Law Firm of Jonathan B. Levine, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant.","caseName":"Crafton v. Law Firm of Levine","caseNameFull":"William CRAFTON and Meredith Benson v. LAW FIRM OF JONATHAN B. LEVINE","citation":["957 F. Supp. 2d 992","2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95327","2013 WL 3441243"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":8726764,"court":"District Court, E.D. Wisconsin","court_citation_string":"E.D. Wis.","court_id":"wied","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-07-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 12-CV-602","docket_id":65992687,"judge":"Joseph","lexisCite":"2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95327","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:10:59.955884Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T06:56:16.607639Z","score":{"bm25":30.563663}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8709961,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:28:43.667116Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T06:56:16.613341Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nDECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\nNANCY JOSEPH, United States Magistrate Judge.\nIn this action, plaintiffs William Crafton and Meredith Benson (“the plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against the Law Firm of Jonathan B. Levine (“the law firm” or “the defendant”) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). O","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8709961],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8725249/nationwide-mutual-fire-insurance-v-guster-law-firm-llc/","attorney":"Kori L. Clement, Hare Clement & Duck PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant., Steven W. Couch, Mallory L. Schneider, Hollis Wright and Couch PC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants/Counter Claimants.","caseName":"Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Guster Law Firm, LLC","caseNameFull":"NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter v. GUSTER LAW FIRM, LLC, Defendants/Counter","citation":["944 F. Supp. 2d 1116","2013 WL 1346593"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":8725249,"court":"District Court, N.D. Alabama","court_citation_string":"N.D. Ala.","court_id":"alnd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-03-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-1183-AKK","docket_id":65991172,"judge":"Kallon","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:10:17.010214Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T06:43:09.760259Z","score":{"bm25":30.4296}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8708446,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T03:57:52.155803Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T06:43:09.767641Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\n\nABDUL K. KALLON, District Judge.\nA fire destroyed commercial property insured by Nationwide Mutual Fire In*1120surance Company. Nationwide’s investigation of the ensuing claim revealed discrepancies in the details outlined in the insurance applications, including, among other things, the age of the proper","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8708446],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7321125/gonzalez-v-law-office-of-allen-robert-king/","attorney":"Andre L. Verdun, Crowley Law Group, San Diego, CA, for Eduardo Gonzalez., Wayne M. Abb, Law Offices of Wayne M. Abb, Canoga Park, CA, for Law Office of Allen Robert King, et al.","caseName":"Gonzalez v. Law Office of Allen Robert King","caseNameFull":"Eduardo GONZALEZ v. LAW OFFICE OF ALLEN ROBERT KING","citation":["195 F. Supp. 3d 1118","2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92610","2016 WL 3638119"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":7321125,"court":"District Court, C.D. California","court_citation_string":"C.D. Cal.","court_id":"cacd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-07-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CASE NO.: CV 16-02231 SJO (KSx)","docket_id":64309608,"judge":"Otero","lexisCite":"2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92610","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:36:56.957481Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:52:03.708534Z","score":{"bm25":30.230316}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1735,117845,117919,145643,145730,145875,206006,421062,614136,662461,760114,783479,1036001,1362405,1664865,1986116,2473010,2517723,2522079,2620886,2626972,2671500,2682539,8307034,8408936,8700327,8706878,8712731,8739906],"download_url":null,"id":7239035,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:29:37.675143Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:52:03.716116Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT [Docket No. 10]\nPRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\nThis matter is before the Court on Defendants Law Offices of Allen Robert King (“LOAK”) and Allen Robert King’s (“King”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7239035],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2438947/derossi-v-national-loss-management/","attorney":"James G. Williams, Kevin P. Walsh, Williams Walsh & O’Connor, North Haven, CT, for Plaintiff., Frederick A. Lovejoy, Lovejoy & Associates, Easton, CT, for Defendants.","caseName":"DeRossi v. National Loss Management","caseNameFull":"John DEROSSI, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL LOSS MANAGEMENT, National Marine Underwriters, Inc., and Hanover Insurance Company Defendants","citation":["328 F. Supp. 2d 283","2004 A.M.C. 2137","2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14812","2004 WL 1737551"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":2438947,"court":"District Court, D. Connecticut","court_citation_string":"D. Conn.","court_id":"ctd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2004-07-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"3:02-cr-00247","docket_id":2311258,"judge":"Hall","lexisCite":"2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14812","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:42:56.317104Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:18:47.013947Z","score":{"bm25":30.136066}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1330,"cites":[105270,111719,404112,706924,710036,767468,770115,770835,773395,779792,779794,2326819,2478901],"download_url":null,"id":2438947,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:39:06.252007Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:35:58.423552Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f9505315a684196a7dcfb99cf0974f3b5dc3acf7","snippet":"\n328 F.Supp.2d 283 (2004)\nJohn DEROSSI, Plaintiff,\nv.\nNATIONAL LOSS MANAGEMENT, National Marine Underwriters, Inc., and Hanover Insurance Company Defendants\nNo. CIV. 3-02-CV-247JCH.\nUnited States District Court, D. Connecticut.\nJuly 29, 2004.\n*284 *285 James G. Williams, Kevin P. Walsh, William","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2438947],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4762592/masellis-v-law-office-of-leslie-f-jensen/","attorney":"","caseName":"Masellis v. Law Office of Leslie F. Jensen","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4762592,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-06-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"F075772","docket_id":17270150,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:17:30.125998Z","date_created":"2020-06-20T00:02:27.697407Z","score":{"bm25":30.132616}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[110676,1115051,1201545,1404112,2594995,2629921,2639473],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F075772.PDF","id":4542939,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/06/19/masellis_v._law_office_of_leslie_f._jensen.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:04:59.400159Z","date_created":"2020-06-20T00:02:27.702150Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"062685d92e3e049f473a80128bb998cc91253053","snippet":"Filed 6/19/20\n\n\n\n\n                      CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*\n\n\n                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                            FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n    KRISTA MASELLIS,\n                                                             F075772 & F076362\n         Cross-complainant and Respondent,\n                                                           (Super. Ct. No. 2012536)\n         v.\n\n    LAW OFFICE OF LESLIE F. JENSEN et al.,                    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4542939],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4460544/law-v-zemp/","attorney":"","caseName":"Law v. Zemp","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4460544,"court":"Oregon Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Or.","court_id":"or","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-01-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S064387","docket_id":6262805,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:51:35.067756Z","date_created":"2018-01-19T16:27:14.466552Z","score":{"bm25":29.98857}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108739,835091,836365,1120216,1186630,1383893,1890125,3840063],"download_url":"http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064387.pdf","id":4237797,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/01/11/law_v._zemp_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:33:11.977935Z","date_created":"2018-01-19T16:27:14.472593Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"de3dcddd653b1e9e80d4761f4b53937b9b04ca19","snippet":"302\t                       January 11, 2018\t                         No. 1\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE\n                   STATE OF OREGON\n\n                         Robert LAW,\n    on behalf of the Robert M. Law Profit Sharing Plan,\n                   Respondent on Review,\n                              v.\n                        Ronald ZEMP,\n                          Defendant,\n                             and\n           FOREVER YOUNG OREGON, LLC;\n       The Ron Zemp Family 1 Limite","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4237797],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4458693/law-v-zemp/","attorney":"","caseName":"Law v. Zemp","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4458693,"court":"Oregon Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Or.","court_id":"or","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-01-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S064387","docket_id":6258926,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:51:07.822491Z","date_created":"2018-01-11T16:24:19.244085Z","score":{"bm25":29.559027}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108739,1890125],"download_url":"http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064387.pdf","id":4235946,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/01/11/law_v._zemp.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:31:48.676133Z","date_created":"2018-01-11T16:24:19.250925Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"141a4ca69d4c0f1f0429035caa35206bcb740c89","snippet":"302\t                       January 11, 2018\t                         No. 1\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE\n                   STATE OF OREGON\n\n                         Robert LAW,\n    on behalf of the Robert M. Law Profit Sharing Plan,\n                   Respondent on Review,\n                              v.\n                        Ronald ZEMP,\n                          Defendant,\n                             and\n           FOREVER YOUNG OREGON, LLC;\n       The Ron Zemp Family 1 Limite","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4235946],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8071180/sherner-v-national-loss-control-services-corp/","attorney":"For Appellants: Gene R. Jarussi; Jarussi & Bishop, Billings; Jeremiah C. Lynch, Attorney at Law, Great Falls., For Respondents: Robert M. Carlson; Corette, Pohlman & Kebe, Butte (For National Loss Control Service Corporation); David A. Veeder, Jolane D. Veeder; Veeder Law Firm, Billings (For ConocoPhillips); Ian McIntosh; Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, Bozeman (For Crawford & Company and Cathy Andersen).","caseName":"Sherner v. National Loss Control Services Corp.","caseNameFull":"PETER R. SHERNER and DEBORAH SHERNER, and v. NATIONAL LOSS CONTROL SERVICES CORPORATION, CONOCO, INC., CRAWFORD & COMPANY, CATHY ANDERSEN and JOHN DOES I-V, and","citation":["329 Mont. 247","2005 MT 284","124 P.3d 150","2005 Mont. LEXIS 473"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8071180,"court":"Montana Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Mont.","court_id":"mont","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2005-11-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 04-118","docket_id":65166769,"judge":"Cotter, Gray, Leaphart, Nelson, Rice, Warner","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T16:58:30.582269Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T03:02:43.749514Z","score":{"bm25":29.020535}},"neutralCite":"2005 MT 284","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8029744,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T00:58:40.130737Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T03:02:43.759377Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nCHIEF JUSTICE GRAY\ndelivered the Opinion of the Court.\n¶1 Peter R. Sherner (Peter) and Deborah Sherner (collectively, the Sherners) appeal from an order of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, granting summary judgment dismissing all their claims and awarding costs to the defendants. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.\n¶2 We restate the issues on appeal as","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8029744,8029745,8029746,8029747],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}