{"count":121499,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yOS42MzQ3JnM9NzMzNTkzMCZ0PW8mZD0yMDI2LTA5LTMwJnA9Mg%3D%3D&q=PARTIES+TO+THE+CONTRACT+CONTRACTUAL+RELATIONSHIPS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6460323/bernblum-v-the-grove-collaborative-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Bernblum v. The Grove Collaborative, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6460323,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-04-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC44177","docket_id":63243243,"judge":"Bright; Prescott; Clark","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:38:21.742774Z","date_created":"2022-04-18T16:01:43.260375Z","score":{"bm25":47.39237}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1542246,2371935],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP211/211AP194.pdf","id":6332434,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/04/19/bernblum_v._the_grove_collaborative_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:38:21.680905Z","date_created":"2022-04-18T16:01:43.263389Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d72f270861150267d15538d805ab43cfb1d15485","snippet":"***********************************************\n The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, and tried to the court, Baio, J.; judgment in part for the plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed to this court. Reversed in part; judgment directed. Robert M. Frost, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Erica A. Barber, for the appellants (defendants). Earle Giovanniello, for the appellee (plaintiff).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6332434],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants, B and G Co., for, inter alia, breach of contract relating to his negotiations with B over a potential lease of certain commercial property by G Co., B's limited liability company. The negotiations began in October, 2012, and several proposed lease agreements were drafted by the plaintiff's attorney and exchanged by the parties. All of the proposed leases listed G Co. as the sole tenant and C Co., a limited liability company that was not formed by the plaintiff until August, 2013, as the sole landlord. During the course of lease negotiations, B expressed a need for certain improvements to be made to the space, specifically, the construction of additional walls. The plaintiff paid for the construction of those additional walls on an assurance by G Co. that he would be reimbursed, and the final version of the proposed lease contained a provision pursuant to which the tenant would have been required to reimburse the landlord for the wall construction by way of additional rent. The plaintiff also made several additional repairs and improvements to the property. In February, 2013, the plaintiff delivered a final version of the proposed lease to B. Although B made an oral representation to the plaintiff that he intended to sign it once his accountant returned from a trip, the lease was never executed. Despite the absence of a finalized lease, the plaintiff provided G Co. with access to the property later in February, 2013, to conduct a grand opening event. Soon thereafter, G Co. removed items it had brought into the space and began operating its business out of another property, and the defendants never made any payments to the plaintiff. Following a bench trial, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on the counts of the revised complaint sounding in breach of contract, breach of lease, detrimental reliance, and negligent misrepresentation, and for the defendants on the fraud counts. The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to reconsider/reargue. On the defendants' appeal to this court, held: 1. The plaintiff lacked standing to bring the counts of the complaint sounding in breach of contract, breach of lease, and detrimental reliance: the plaintiff did not have a direct interest in the litigation with respect to those counts because no contractual relationship existed, or was ever contemplated, between the plaintiff in his individual capacity and the defendants, as the plaintiff was not a party to any of the underlying proposed lease agreements and the plaintiff was, instead, negotiating solely on behalf of C Co.; moreover, the plaintiff brought the underlying action not on behalf of C Co., as the real party in interest, but in his own name individually. 2. The trial court improperly rendered judgment for the plaintiff on the counts of the complaint sounding in negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff having failed to meet his burden of proof on those counts: the plaintiff failed to establish that his asserted expenditures for improve- ments to the property were made to his detriment in reasonable reliance on B's statement, in February, 2013, that he would sign the lease once his accountant returned, because, although the trial court admitted into evidence copies of checks reflecting payments that the plaintiff attrib- uted to the cost of the repairs and improvements to the space, the vast majority of those checks predated B's February, 2013 statement, and, therefore, it could not reasonably be inferred from the checks that the plaintiff made the improvements in reliance on the February, 2013 representation by B; moreover, although there was evidence that B made statements during negotiations about changes that he would have liked to have seen made to the property and entered into a contract for the construction of additional walls, which the plaintiff paid for, those requests by B were not alleged to be the negligent misrepresentation on which the plaintiff reasonably relied to his detriment. Argued December 6, 2021—officially released April 19, 2022"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10273995/application-of-the-randolph-sheppard-act-to-the-united-states-mint/","attorney":"","caseName":"Application of the Randolph-Sheppard Act to the United States Mint","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10273995,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-09-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":69374433,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:15.183999Z","date_created":"2024-11-14T16:00:16.725736Z","score":{"bm25":40.729244}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[85272,102139,104033,107198,109489,112068,164059,185634,185857,476637,867657,2684910,2967377,4256633,4561704,4703369,6346029,6928501,9376681,9407606,9416255,9416363,9427329,9427540,9872552,9901094],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1377031/dl","id":10740585,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/09/09/application_of_the_randolph-sheppard_act_to_the_united_states_mint.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T11:44:01.352111Z","date_created":"2024-11-14T16:00:16.733970Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9c4aca274bdeb4b0266b7a7dba85910948231989","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n Application of the Randolph-Sheppard Act\n to the United States Mint\nAlthough the Randolph-Sheppard Act generally requires federal agencies to give a\n preference to blind vendors when authorizing vending facilities on property they con-\n trol, Congress in 31 U.S.C. § 5136 exempted the relevant operations of the United\n States Mint from that requirement. The regulations of the Department of the Treasury\n implementing the Act, which predate ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10740585],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Although the Randolph-Sheppard Act generally requires federal agencies to give a preference to blind vendors when authorizing vending facilities on property they control, Congress in 31 U.S.C. § 5136 exempted the relevant operations of the United States Mint from that requirement. The regulations of the Department of the Treasury implementing the Act, which predate 31 U.S.C. § 5136, also do not require the Mint to follow the Act's preference requirements."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10517585/marietta-v-professional-serv-industries-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Marietta v. Professional Serv. Industries, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 1530"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10517585,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23CA12","docket_id":70136586,"judge":"Smith","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-05-05T17:45:16.271295Z","date_created":"2025-05-05T17:45:16.202400Z","score":{"bm25":35.0482}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 1530","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[209723,440364,2690758,2697658,2697963,2706006,3683452,3688909,3716331,3748240,4097641,4118784,4155022,4455349,4520256,4583189,6700673,6756244,6759855,6762938,6763811,6765423,6770273,6773631,6773663,6774479,6775372,8621414,9801238,9801709,9801758,9869322,9899441,9918885],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/4/2025/2025-Ohio-1530.pdf","id":10984173,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/04/22/marietta_v._professional_serv._industries_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T03:41:45.991381Z","date_created":"2025-05-05T17:45:16.215934Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2bf29fb2792d1d3fb56d1281c6987295f852050b","snippet":"[Cite as Marietta v. Professional Serv. Industries, Inc., 2025-Ohio-1530.]\n\n\n\n\n IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n WASHINGTON COUNTY\n\nCITY OF MARIETTA, :\n :\n Plaintiff-Appellant, : Case No. 23CA12\n :\n v. :\n : DECISION AND JUDGMENT\nPROFESSIONA","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10984173],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"CIVIL-CONTRACTS-AGREEMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE-SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT-SUPERSEDING CONTRACT - Where conduct of Plaintiff/Appellant in attaching second written agreement as an exhibit to orifinal agreement, and subsequently attaching the original agreement to Plaintiff/Appellant's Complaint strongly suggested that Plaintiff/Appellant viewed both agreements as one fully integrated document, and where on motion practice, Plaintiff/Appellant further failed to introduce evidence that second agreement was intended to replace orifinal agreement, trial court did not err in finding that the second agreement was not a \"standalone\" contract intended to replace original agreement, and that the contractual relationship between the parties was clear and unambiguous, and thus did not err in granting summary judgment to Defendants/Appellees as a matter of law."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10162950/fairway-capital-partners-llc-v-tamaryn-gause/","attorney":"","caseName":"Fairway Capital Partners, LLC v. Tamaryn Gause","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10162950,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2023-01136-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":69325820,"judge":"Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-10-30T18:11:57.104139Z","date_created":"2024-10-30T18:11:57.023318Z","score":{"bm25":34.543262}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8279,"cites":[195837,1046785,1532940,2363993,2370393,2464346,2613119,3893065,5056925,8753247,8754953],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/FairwayCapitalPartnersOPN.pdf","id":10629546,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/30/fairway_capital_partners_llc_v._tamaryn_gause.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T18:29:25.720291Z","date_created":"2024-10-30T18:11:57.045130Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8ac308a8bd2eac6d8d03e7fe165034e8be7ad406","snippet":" 10/30/2024\n IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n AT JACKSON\n June 25, 2024 Session\n\n FAIRWAY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC v. TAMARYN GAUSE ET AL.\n\n Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County\n No. CH-20-1429 Jim Kyle, Chancellor\n ___________________________________\n\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10629546],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The assignee of a contract for the sale of real property appeals the dismissal of its claims against a third party for civil conspiracy to commit breach of contract, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and statutory inducement of breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant third party based on its conclusion that the third party had no notice of the contract at issue and did not act maliciously. We vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4581399/in-re-amendments-to-the-rules-regulating-the-florida-bar-biennial/","attorney":"Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, Michelle R. Suskauer, President, John Stewart, President-Elect, Lori S. Holcomb, Director, Division of Ethics and Consumer Protection, and Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner","caseName":"In RE: AMENDMENTS TO the RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR-BIENNIAL PETITION.","caseNameFull":"In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar - Biennial Petition","citation":["267 So. 3d 891"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4581399,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-01-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC18-1683","docket_id":8498545,"judge":"Per Curiam","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:25:29.816565Z","date_created":"2019-01-15T04:06:21.735852Z","score":{"bm25":34.12071}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1112771,1726169],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/425664/4588032/file/sc18-1683.pdf","id":4358652,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/01/04/in_re_amendments_to_the_rules_regulating_the_florida_bar_-_biennial.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:57:16.922294Z","date_created":"2019-01-15T04:06:21.747512Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"16d88db2038e9e5e67feb255eb5c37e859494a2e","snippet":"\n\n\n PER CURIAM.\n \n\n This matter is before the Court on the petition of The Florida Bar (Bar) proposing amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rules). We have jurisdiction.\n \n See\n \n art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.\n \n\n The Bar's petition in this case proposes amendments to the following existing Bar Rules: 1-3.7 (Reinstatement to Membership); 2-3.11 (Quo","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4358652],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4848301/application-of-the-hyde-amendment-to-federal-student-aid-programs/","attorney":"","caseName":"Application of the Hyde Amendment to Federal Student-Aid Programs","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4848301,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-01-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":29115135,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:09.541237Z","date_created":"2021-01-18T08:00:54.873741Z","score":{"bm25":33.686584}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[86353,102037,109907,110334,354019,361308,364045,365558,394850,593338,8921233,8986460,9425157,9428058,9435285,9435348],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1355946/download","id":4652080,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/01/16/application_of_the_hyde_amendment_to_federal_student-aid_programs.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T00:11:27.505648Z","date_created":"2021-01-18T08:00:54.876592Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5f3f3e73a154ffa6fd859d18ba6e611db82ee78e","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n Application of the Hyde Amendment\n to Federal Student-Aid Programs\n\nThe Hyde Amendment in the Department of Education’s annual appropriations legislation\n for fiscal years 2020 and 2021 applies to the funding in that legislation for Federal Pell\n Grants, Federal Supplemental Opportunity Grants, Scholarships for Veteran’s Depend-\n ents, and Federal Work-Study Programs. But additional sources of federal funding for\n these programs provided in","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4652080],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Hyde Amendment in the Department of Education's annual appropriations legislation for fiscal years 2020 and 2021 applies to the funding in that legislation for Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Opportunity Grants, Scholarships for Veteran's Dependents, and Federal Work-Study Programs. But additional sources of federal funding for these programs provided in other statutes are not subject to the Hyde Amendment. Federal student-aid funding subject to the Hyde Amendment remains so after it is paid to higher-education institutions for disbursement. These institutions must therefore comply with the Hyde Amendment in expending such funds."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4608977/amendments-to-the-rules-regulating-the-florida-bar-biennial-petition/","attorney":"","caseName":"Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar - Biennial Petition","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4608977,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-04-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC18-1683","docket_id":14917539,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:33:17.862406Z","date_created":"2019-04-11T15:02:58.199023Z","score":{"bm25":33.38335}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1112771,1726169],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/523357/5814245/file/sc18-1683_BIENNIAL PETITION_CORRECTED.pdf","id":4386230,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/04/11/amendments_to_the_rules_regulating_the_florida_bar_-_biennial_petition_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:16:23.685541Z","date_created":"2019-04-11T15:02:58.204413Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"652d5c89628ec16488dc629976afa0449ac4094a","snippet":" Supreme Court of Florida\n ____________\n\n No. SC18-1683\n ____________\n\n\nIN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA\n BAR—BIENNIAL PETITION.\n\n January 4, 2019\n CORRECTED OPINION\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n This matter is before the Court on the petition of The Florida Bar (Bar)\n\nproposing amendments to the Rules R","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4386230],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10927157/nicholls-v-veolia-water-contract-operations-usa-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Nicholls v. Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10927157,"court":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","court_citation_string":"Mass.","court_id":"mass","court_jurisdiction":"S","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-07-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SJC 13804","docket_id":73606270,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-07-13T14:09:07.735404Z","date_created":"2026-07-13T14:09:07.468092Z","score":{"bm25":31.625895}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2020036,2051692,2102356,2775096,6451397,6451962,6454155],"download_url":"https://www.mass.gov/doc/nicholls-v-veolia-water-contract-operations-usa-inc-sjc-m13804/download","id":11394696,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/07/13/nicholls_v._veolia_water_contract_operations_usa_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-07-13T14:09:17.318755Z","date_created":"2026-07-13T14:09:07.530063Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ed5e2595a885b9a5f64db41aad1bf2e1342f1ee3","snippet":"NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal\nrevision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound\nvolumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical\nerror or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of\nDecisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1\nPemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-\n1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us\n\nSJC-13804\n\n JEREMIAH NICHOLLS & others1 vs. VEOLIA WATER CONTRACT\n OPERATION","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11394696],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3169581/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-civil-procedure/","attorney":"Judge Jacqueline Hogan Scola, Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Miami, FL; Kevin Bayly Cook, Past Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Roger. Towers, P.A., Ponte Vedra Beach, FL; Thomas Howell Bateman, III, Past Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Messer Ca-parello, P.A., Tallahassee, FL; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Gregory A. Zhelesnik, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner., Lynn E. Szymoniak, Director, The Housing' Justice Foundation, West Palm Beach, FL; Mark Aloysius Cullen of The Cullen Law Firm, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL; Patrick Lome Farrell, Cape Coral, FL; Chief Judge James T. McGrady, III, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Clearwater, FL; Michael L. Emge, Senior Staff Attorney, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Saint Petersburg, FL; Alejandro Modesto Sanchez, President and Chief Executive Officer, Florida Bankers Association, Inc., Tallahassee, FL; Virginia Bullerman Townes of Aker-man LLP, Orlando, FL; Senior Judge Randall G. McDonald, Tenth Juditial Circuit, Bartow, FL; Nye Lavalle, Pew Mortgage Institute, Boca Raton, Florida; John F. Hooley, Naples, FL; Joel Martin McTague of Frank Weinberg &■ Black, PL, Plantation, FL; Michael Allen Dribin, Chair, The Real Property, Probate and Trust Section of The Florida Bar, Miami, FL; Heidi Jo Bassett and Robert Rex Edwards of Robertson, Anschutz & Schneid, P.L., Boca Raton, FL; - Thomas E. Ice of Ice Legal PA, Royal Palm Beach, FL; Lynn Drysdale, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc.,'Jacksonville, FL; Alice Maria Vickers, Florida Alliance for Consumer Protection, Tallahassee, FL; Roy David Oppenheim of Oppenheim & Pilelsky, Weston, FL; Margery Ellen Golant of Golant & Golant, P.A., Boca Raton, FL; Matthew Decell Weidner of Matthew D. Wéidner, PA, Saint Petersburg, FL; Kevin Michael Hoyes of Kevin Hoyes Attorney PA, Key West, FL; Wendell David Finn'er, First Coast Consumer Law, Jacksonville Beach, FL; and Ronald Gillis, Murdock, FL, Responding with Comments.","caseName":"In Re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE","caseNameFull":"In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure","citation":["190 So. 3d 999","41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1","2016 Fla. LEXIS 68","2016 WL 164134"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":3169581,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-01-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC13-2384","docket_id":3028217,"judge":"Cúriam, Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Canady, Polston, Perry","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T18:14:13.022757Z","date_created":"2016-01-14T16:53:04.981696Z","score":{"bm25":31.48875}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1725817,1946214],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2016/sc13-2384.pdf","id":3169581,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/01/14/in_re_amendments_to_the_florida_rules_of_civil_procedure.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T03:46:50.623219Z","date_created":"2016-01-14T16:02:57.944806Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6ee7f151ed7dd91b7aeac002a848cf9c0a5ccbc1","snippet":"\n\n\n PER CÚRIAM.\n \n\n This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction.\n \n See\n \n art. V,- § 2(a), Fla. Const, ..\n \n\n BACKGROUND\n \n\n The Civil Procedure Rules Committee (Committee) filed a “fash-track” out-of-cycle report, pursuant to Florida Rule of","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3169581],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2657803/cms-contract-management-services-v-massachusetts-housing-finance-agency/","attorney":"Robert K. Tompkins, Patton Boggs LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for all plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were Michael J. Schaengold and Elizabeth M. Gill. Of counsel on the brief were Colm P. Nelson, Foster Pepper PLLC, of Seattle, Washington, for CMS Contract Management Services and The Housing Authority of The City of Bremerton; and Michael Golden, Pepper Hamilton LLP, of Washington, DC, for National Housing Compliance; Neil H. O’Donnell, Rogers, Joseph, O’Donnell, of San Francisco, California, for Assisted Housing Services Corp., North Tampa Housing Development Corp. and California Affordable Housing Initiatives, Inc.; and Richard James Vacura, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, of McLean, Virginia, for Southwest Housing Compliance Corp. Of counsel was William Gregory Guedel, Foster Pepper PPLC, of Seattle, Washington, for CMS Contract Management Services., Gabriel E. Kennon, Cohen Mohr LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellee Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency. Of counsel was Andrew J. Mohr., Kirk T. Manhardt, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Jeanne E. Davidson, Director. Of counsel on the brief were Douglas K. Mickle, Senior Trial Counsel, and Joseph A. Pixley, Trial Attorney, Doris S. Finnerman, Assistant General Counsel for Assisted Housing and Civil Rights, Office of General Counsel, and Kathie So-roka, Special Assistant to the General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, of Washington, DC., Kevin P. Mullen, Jenner & Block, LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae.","caseName":"CMS Contract Management Services v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency","caseNameFull":"CMS CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the Housing Authority of the City of Bremerton, National Housing Compliance, Assisted Housing Services Corp., North Tampa Housing Development Corp., California Affordable Housing Initiatives, Inc., Southwest Housing Compliance Corporation, and Navigate Affordable Housing Partners (Formerly Known as Jefferson County Assisted Housing Corporation), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MASSACHUSETTS HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United States, Defendant-Appellee","citation":["745 F.3d 1379","2014 WL 1202499","2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5432"],"citeCount":22,"cluster_id":2657803,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cir.","court_id":"cafc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-03-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2013-5093","docket_id":158202,"judge":"Rader, Lourie, Moore","lexisCite":"2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5432","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:39:05.873308Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T07:06:35.315939Z","score":{"bm25":31.404358}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[206859,445139],"download_url":"http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-5093.Opinion.3-19-2014.1.PDF","id":2657803,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/03/25/cms_contract_management_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T21:41:41.860176Z","date_created":"2014-03-25T15:26:17.322662Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bccf33b7baf300bfebeb303552659a02a3a78e82","snippet":"\n\n\n RADER, Chief Judge.\n \n\n The Court of Federal Claims denied CMS Management Services et al.’s (Appellants) request to set aside as unlawful the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) solicitation and award of contract administration services related to Section 8 of the Housing Act. Because the Performance-Based Annual Contribution Contracts (PBACCs) are procurement contra","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2657803],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4731999/in-re-amendments-to-the-oklahoma-uniform-jury-instructions-civil/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CIVIL","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 OK 3"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4731999,"court":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla.","court_id":"okla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-01-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":16921848,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:09:30.127062Z","date_created":"2020-03-03T20:10:27.468214Z","score":{"bm25":31.002726}},"neutralCite":"2020 OK 3","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[278894,566448,1168361,1565716,2204443,2368060,2510363,2626585,2627166,2631225,2634529,2640464,2716723,3802757,3803076,3805659,3820267,3821577,3825742,3825784,3827253,3835000,4282425,4501783],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=486387","id":4512346,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2020/01/13/in_re_amendments_to_the_oklahoma_uniform_jury_instructions_-_civil_4.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-22T22:35:38.757541Z","date_created":"2020-03-03T20:10:27.483029Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d7b813a79112cc3b9a09a25406d2c5183126ab2e","snippet":"\n\t\tOSCN Found Document:IN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CIVIL\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tIN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CIVIL2020 OK 3Decided: 01/13/2020THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA\nCite as: 2020 OK 3, __ P.3d __\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\nIN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4512346],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4485331/the-episcopal-church-the-local-episcopal-parties-the-local-episcopal/","attorney":"","caseName":"the Episcopal Church, the Local Episcopal Parties, the Local Episcopal Congregations, and the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori v. Franklin Salazar and Intervening Congregations","caseNameFull":"","citation":["547 S.W.3d 353"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":4485331,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Fort Worth","court_id":"txctapp2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-04-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"02-15-00220-CV","docket_id":6359114,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T11:58:35.571015Z","date_created":"2018-04-10T15:51:47.793206Z","score":{"bm25":30.981335}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[101466,105044,106063,107832,108029,109495,110144,620673,777684,894543,894886,895104,895124,895187,895227,895321,1324389,1334338,1382385,1384486,1397148,1439357,1449720,1502647,1508852,1515115,1518320,1533575,1557537,1568694,1569988,1578234,1580836,1582313,1622354,1626038,1629278,1652281,1657831,1664744,1678878,1718906,1728149,1746141,1758484,1778095,1791766,2100316,2102254,2154017,2172548,2174680,2331661,2349417,2353962,2383099,2393810,2398429,2402694,2419443,2426123,2427974,2428266,2428901,2431638,2431890,2432041,2435329,2438408,2446685,2452091,2452324,2454615,2458607,2460967,2461927,2537824,2545994,3903745,3914262,3938929,3948227,3962426,3964246,3966797,3968462,3974874,3979826],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=67104&Index=%5c%5coca%2dpsql12%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa02%5cOpinion","id":4262584,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/04/05/the_episcopal_church_the_local_episcopal_parties_the_local_episcopal.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T11:58:35.564128Z","date_created":"2018-04-10T15:51:47.799878Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9ac6fd1d380d2ad097505daf480245ec0c5fd588","snippet":" COURT OF APPEALS\n SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n FORT WORTH\n\n NO. 02-15-00220-CV\n\n\nTHE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, THE APPELLANTS\nLOCAL EPISCOPAL PARTIES,\nTHE LOCAL EPISCOPAL\nCONGREGATIONS, AND THE\nMOST REV. KATHARINE\nJEFFERTS SCHORI\n\n V.\n\nFRANKLIN SALAZAR AND APPELLEES\nINTERVENING CONGREGATIONS\n\n\n ----------\n\n FROM THE 141ST D","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4262584],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4694655/in-re-amendments-to-the-oklahoma-uniform-jury-instructions-civil/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CIVIL","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 OK 3"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":4694655,"court":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla.","court_id":"okla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-01-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":16687088,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:57:53.240235Z","date_created":"2020-01-13T22:09:37.892659Z","score":{"bm25":30.950027}},"neutralCite":"2020 OK 3","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[278894,566448,1111095,1118772,1164526,1168361,1168559,1173160,1186489,1196510,1202805,1206569,1219617,1243775,1275109,1282472,1351672,1361600,1365472,1367790,1415475,1421075,1421187,1423577,1439395,1452118,1455975,1565716,2204443,2368060,2510363,2615017,2619994,2626585,2627166,2631225,2634529,2640464,2716723,3217784,3799410,3802757,3803076,3805659,3820153,3820267,3821576,3825742,3825784,3826339,3827046,3827253,3828603,3835000,4253751,4472667],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=486387","id":4471986,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2020/01/13/in_re_amendments_to_the_oklahoma_uniform_jury_instructions_-_civil.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-22T22:34:01.575779Z","date_created":"2020-01-13T22:09:37.901359Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f9adb2a8250127ca5a42fb0ecbf38808e879a1fa","snippet":"\n\t\tOSCN Found Document:IN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CIVIL\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tIN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CIVIL2020 OK 3Decided: 01/13/2020THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA\nCite as: 2020 OK 3, __ P.3d __\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\nIN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCT","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4471986],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/858621/cms-contract-management-services-v-united-states/","attorney":"Colm P. Nelson, Foster Pepper PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for CMS Contract Management Services and the Housing Authority of the City of Bremerton., Neil H. O’Donnell, with whom were Dennis J. Callahan and Jeffrey M. Chiow, Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, San Francisco, California, for Assisted Housing Services Corp., North Tampa Housing Development Corp., and California Affordable Housing Initiatives, Inc., Richard J. Vaeura, with whom were Tina D. Reynolds and K. Alyse Latour, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, D.C., for Southwest Housing Compliance Corporation., Robert K. Tompkins, with whom was Elizabeth M. Gill, Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, D.C., for Navigate Affordable Housing Partners.1, Michael R. Golden, with whom were Michael A. Hordell, Heather Kilgore Weiner, and Samuel Jack, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Washington, D.C., for National Housing Compliance., Gabe E. Kennon, with whom was Andrew Mohr, Cohen Mohr LLP, Washington D.C., for Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency., Douglas K. Mickle, with whom were Joseph A Pixley, Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Kirk Manhardt, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, D.C.; Dorie Finner-man, Assistant General Counsel for Assisted Housing and Civil Rights, Kathie Soroka, Special Assistant to the General Counsel, and Kasey M. Podzius, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., for Defendant., Kevin P. Mullen, with whom was Charles L. Capito III, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National Council of State Housing Authorities.","caseName":"Cms Contract Management Services v. United States","caseNameFull":"CMS CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES; The Housing Authority of the City of Bremerton; National Housing Compliance; Assisted Housing Services Corp.; North Tampa Housing Development Corp.; California Affordable Housing Initiatives, Inc.; Navigate Affordable Housing Partners; Southwest Housing Compliance Corp.; And Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, Plaintiffs, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant","citation":["110 Fed. Cl. 537","2013 U.S. Claims LEXIS 307","2013 WL 1727186"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":858621,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-04-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"12-852C, 12-853C, 12-862C, 12-864C, & 12-869C","docket_id":300268,"judge":"Wheeler","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T00:57:04.703004Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T08:17:31.663208Z","score":{"bm25":30.916191}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[776,109009,205533,208807,209668,580039,658825,721426,769216,771944,785931,789965,1228440],"download_url":"http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/WHEELER.CMS_.1041913.pdf","id":858621,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2013/04/19/cms_contract_management_services_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T17:47:17.155373Z","date_created":"2013-04-22T17:58:19.887516Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bba804d890a3877625519a33809931cb1deac480","snippet":"\n\n\n Pre-award Bid Protests; Project-based HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance Program; Procurement Contracts Contrasted With Cooperative Agreements; 31 U.S.C. §§ 6301-6308; Applicability of Competition in Contracting Act and Federal Acquisition Regulation; Analysis of HUD Housing Assistance Statutes and Regulations.\n \n\n\n OPINION AND ORDER\n \n\n\n WHEELER, Judge.\n