{"count":16497,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xNi4zMzUwMyZzPTEwNjM1MTIwJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMTAtMDImcD0y&q=PECUNIARY+LOSS+TYPES+OF+LOSS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9439790/state-of-tennessee-v-johnny-summers-cavin/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Johnny Summers Cavin","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9439790,"court":"Tennessee Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Tenn.","court_id":"tenn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2020-01333-SC-R11-CD","docket_id":68004248,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:16:56.518152Z","date_created":"2023-11-14T19:18:52.091281Z","score":{"bm25":22.2804}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[105663,423490,794185,1043920,1043936,1057566,1057584,1057635,1058241,1060524,1061059,1077285,1083697,1438948,1490475,1624410,1632208,1738804,1750703,2193996,2426632,2432634,2999322,4089191,8304294],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/CAVIN%20-%20FILED%20Majority%20Opn.pdf","id":9897615,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/06/08/state_of_tennessee_v._johnny_summers_cavin.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:04:12.069541Z","date_created":"2023-11-14T19:18:52.096148Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f1139ab207096a73973f75f12935b39da240445f","snippet":"                                                                                             06/08/2023\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE\n                             AT KNOXVILLE\n                                September 7, 2022 Session\n\n           STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHNNY SUMMERS CAVIN\n\n              Appeal by Permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals\n                        Criminal Court for Sullivan County\n                    No. S72963    James F. Goodwin, Jr., Ju","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9897615],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The primary issue presented is whether a criminal restitution order is a final and appealable order under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 when the order directs a defendant to pay a set amount of restitution without payment terms. A trial court ordered the defendant who had pleaded guilty to burglary and theft to pay $5,500 in restitution during his probationary period. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the restitution order was not a final and appealable order because it lacked payment terms. We hold that the restitution order was a final order. Tennessee's criminal restitution statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304, allows—but does not require—trial courts to specify payment terms. Here, the trial court's restitution order resolved all issues, was reasonable, and appropriately considered the victim's pecuniary loss and the defendant's ability to pay."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5294552/state-of-tennessee-v-johnny-summers-cavin/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Johnny Summers Cavin","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5294552,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-11-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2020-01333-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":60696318,"judge":"Judge Camille R. McMullen","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:34:51.248905Z","date_created":"2021-11-03T19:15:01.261397Z","score":{"bm25":20.90603}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8286,"cites":[1061059,1438948,1524705,1738804,5053321],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/johnny_summers_cavin_cca_majority_opinion.pdf","id":5123114,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/11/03/state_of_tennessee_v._johnny_summers_cavin.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T23:44:10.926780Z","date_created":"2021-11-03T19:15:01.276588Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e4ca7ed90826a05341084ba73273450ffb6151af","snippet":"                                                                                              11/03/2021\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                         AT KNOXVILLE\n                            Assigned on Briefs June 29, 2021\n\n           STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHNNY SUMMERS CAVIN\n\n                 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County\n                     No. S72963 James F. Goodwin, Jr., Judge\n                      ___________________________________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5123114],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Defendant-Appellant, Johnny Summers Cavin, entered guilty pleas to burglary and theft of property valued more than $2,500 but less than $10,000. He also entered guilty pleas to unrelated charges from a separate case. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant received concurrent sentences of two years and six months each on supervised probation, to be served consecutively to the sentences he received in an unrelated probation violation case. In a subsequent restitution hearing, the trial court ordered him to pay a total of $5,500 in restitution. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose restitution and that, alternatively, the trial court erred in setting the restitution amount at $5,500, asserting that the victim's pecuniary loss was not substantiated by evidence and that the amount is unreasonable based on the Defendant's income. Upon review, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to address the merits of the instant case, and the appeal is dismissed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4425732/people-v-stanley/","attorney":"David J. Young, District Attorney, Cameron M. Munier, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Brighton, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant, Bendinelli Law Firm, PC, Mark G. May-berry, Westminster, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee","caseName":"People v. Stanley","caseNameFull":"The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven Robert Paul STANLEY, Defendant-Appellee","citation":["2017 COA 121","405 P.3d 518","2017 Colo. App. LEXIS 1137"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":4425732,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-09-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals 16CA1612","docket_id":6151472,"judge":"Freyre, Booras, Webb","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:41:48.265101Z","date_created":"2017-09-13T15:07:10.884598Z","score":{"bm25":20.360462}},"neutralCite":"2017 COA 121","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1145352,1145493,1420038,2576404,2623718,2634447,3168735,4148588,4148590,5157204,5157998,5178395],"download_url":"http://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/Sections/Opinions/9-7-2017/16CA1612-PD.pdf?ver=2017-09-07-154959-677","id":4202985,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/09/07/people_v._stanley.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:08:57.077095Z","date_created":"2017-09-13T15:07:10.891083Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2f641e6976a206b4a16027b16aedbaa0e870a4bb","snippet":"COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS                                      2017COA121\n\n\nCourt of Appeals No. 16CA1612\nAdams County District Court No. 15CR1433\nHonorable Robert W. Kiesnowski, Jr., Judge\n\n\nThe People of the State of Colorado,\n\nPlaintiff-Appellant,\n\nv.\n\nSteven Robert Paul Stanley,\n\nDefendant-Appellee.\n\n\n                        ORDER AFFIRMED AND CASE\n                       REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS\n\n                                  Division III\n                          Opinion by JUDGE FREYRE","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9878366,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:56:06.454889Z","date_created":"2023-09-27T16:57:39.632762Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOpinion by\nJUDGE FREYRE\n¶ 1 In this prosecution, appeal of a restitution setoff, we must reconcile the dual policy interests underlying the restitution statute, § 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. 2016, of fully compensating -a victim on the one hand and of, precluding double recovery by the victim on the other.\n¶ 2 The prosecution asks us to reverse the trial court’s order awarding the defendant, Steven Ro","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4202985,9878366,9878367],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Stanley's automobile insurer, Geico Indemnity Co. (Geico), entered into a \"Release in Full of All Claims\" (release) with the victim and her husband. Under the settlement, Geico paid the victim $25,000 for all claims related to and stemming from the accident in exchange for a full and final release of all claims against Stanley and Geico. Thereafter, Stanley pleaded guilty to felony vehicular assault, driving under the influence, and careless driving. The prosecution filed a motion to impose restitution and attached a report from the Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP). It showed that the CVCP had paid the victim $30,000, the maximum amount allowable by statute, for pecuniary losses proximately caused by Stanley's criminal conduct. The Court awarded Stanley a $25,000 setoff against restitution for the amount paid by Geico, and ordered him to pay the $5,000 net amount. On appeal, the prosecution argued that Stanley should not receive a setoff for the settlement funds because the release was an unapportioned settlement that did not \"earmark\" the proceeds for the same expenses compensated by the CVCP, leaving open the possibility that the victim used the proceeds for losses not compensated by the CVCP. When a victim receives compensation from a civil settlement against a defendant, the defendant may request a setoff against restitution \"to the extent of any money actually paid to the victim for the same damages.\" For purposes of a setoff, however, the court cannot allocate proceeds from an unapportioned civil settlement agreement without \"specific evidence that the settlement included particular categories of loss,\" because in civil cases victims may recover both pecuniary losses covered by the restitution statute and other damages specifically excluded under the restitution statute. Because the information needed to determine whether a victim has been fully compensated or has received a double recovery is known only by the victim, once a defendant has shown that a civil settlement includes the same categories of losses or expenses as compensated by the CVCP and awarded as restitution, the defendant has met his burden of going forward, and the prosecution may then rebut the inference that a double recovery has occurred. Here, Stanley met his burden of proving a setoff, but the victim may have used some or all of the settlement proceeds for losses not compensated by the CVCP. The order was affirmed, and the case was remanded to permit the prosecution to show that the victim did not receive a double recovery from the settlement proceeds and the CVCP payment."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10597443/estate-of-gregory-v-qdp-wholesale-auto-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Estate of Gregory v. QDP Wholesale Auto, L.L.C.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 1979"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10597443,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24 MA 0087","docket_id":70446422,"judge":"Dickey","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-03T16:12:51.078632Z","date_created":"2025-06-03T16:12:50.914700Z","score":{"bm25":19.390976}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 1979","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2689558,2697892,2703605,3007457,3686560,3687784,3691175,3701946,3715356,3715424,3734842,3736150,3747351,3753105,3758445,3775080,3779476,4352319,5140046,6337010,6699765,6756083,6758363,6759997,6760111,6761413,6761708,6761846,6762446,6773631,6791156,8206742,8621648,8621835,9875592,9882754,9961376,9977373,10034114,10508222],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/7/2025/2025-Ohio-1979.pdf","id":11064031,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/02/estate_of_gregory_v._qdp_wholesale_auto_l.l.c..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T20:33:54.924343Z","date_created":"2025-06-03T16:12:50.948549Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bb05aa34f600675facae5d8e8dbe60783895dec2","snippet":"[Cite as Estate of Gregory v. QDP Wholesale Auto, L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-1979.]\n\n\n\n             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                 MAHONING COUNTY\n\n                          ESTATE OF SHARON L. GREGORY,\n\n                                                Plaintiff,\n\n                                                     v.\n\n                         QDP WHOLESALE AUTO, LLC ET AL.,\n\n                                        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11064031],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"CIVIL – summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; de novo review; escrow; Appellant elected to proceed with a cash only closing; caveat emptor; Appellee had no contractual duty to procure title insurance; no misrepresentation; negligence and fraud claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine; Civ.R. 8(E)(2); promissory estoppel; judgment affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6455840/mccombs-v-ohio-dept-of-dev-disabilities/","attorney":"","caseName":"McCombs v. Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities","caseNameFull":"","citation":["187 N.E.3d 610","2022 Ohio 1035"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":6455840,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-03-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21AP-280","docket_id":63196917,"judge":"Dorrian","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:20:06.693940Z","date_created":"2022-03-29T21:10:25.156648Z","score":{"bm25":18.77923}},"neutralCite":"2022 Ohio 1035","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8081,"cites":[2697572,2701433,2742072,2844086,4191639,4289619,4523260],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2022/2022-Ohio-1035.pdf","id":6327951,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/03/29/mccombs_v._ohio_dept._of_dev._disabilities.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:20:06.709147Z","date_created":"2022-03-29T21:10:25.172451Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8daf0629462d685c887067907d1a49375f4870a9","snippet":"[Cite as McCombs v. Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities, 2022-Ohio-1035.]\n\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nJerri L. McCombs, as the Personal                    :\nRepresentative and Guardian of [B.C.],\n                                                     :\n                Plaintiff-Appellant/\n                Cross-Appellee,                      :             No. 21AP-280\n                                        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6327951],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The court of claims did not err in finding employees of a state center for developmental disabilities were subject to immunity and such finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court of claims did not err in not awarding damages for loss of consortium. The court of claims erred and applied an incorrect standard for assessing damages for pain and suffering and the findings regarding the existence and amount of pain and suffering damages were against the manifest weight of the evidence"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3005126/people-in-the-interest-of-di/","attorney":"Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, John T. Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Hardy & Juba LLC, Michael S. Juba, Denver, Colorado, for Juvenile-Appellant. -","caseName":"People in the Interest of D.I","caseNameFull":"The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, IN the INTEREST OF D.I., Juvenile-Appellant","citation":["2015 COA 136","361 P.3d 1104","2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 1518","2015 WL 5607595"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":3005126,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-09-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals 14CA1554","docket_id":2862374,"judge":"Lichtenstein, Dailey, Fox","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-20T16:23:13.105034Z","date_created":"2015-09-28T18:06:49.536490Z","score":{"bm25":18.238848}},"neutralCite":"2015 COA 136","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1133724,1229916,1242062,1372729,2332559,2464040,2538692,2570694,2599166,2599965,2625331,2629373,3008816],"download_url":"http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9935&courtid=1","id":3005126,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2015/09/24/people_in_the_interest_of_d.i.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T01:55:30.327647Z","date_created":"2015-09-28T18:02:50.821565Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dec70bcdf822bee87cb00ddb8540e9f861b8a426","snippet":"\n\n\n  Opinion by\n \n\n  JUDGE LICHTENSTEIN\n \n\n  T1 This appeal concerns liability for restitution when the actor's conduct occurs after, and separate from, the initial criminal acts that proximately caused the victim's damages.\n \n\n  T2 D.I. appeals his juvenile adjudication for second degree aggravated motor vehicle theft and possession of burglary tool","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3005126],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9497653/matter-of-glusing/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Glusing","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 24125"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9497653,"court":"Surrogate's Court, Monroe County","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Surr. Ct., Monroe Cty.","court_id":"nysurctmonroe","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-04-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":68480359,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:30:46.837604Z","date_created":"2024-04-29T16:08:21.839638Z","score":{"bm25":17.873783}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2212210,2591246,5533005,5535779,5538120,5728511,5779452,5831462,5856120,5885999,5909593,5937341,5954810,5976107,5990280,5995609,6067195,6152404,9964089],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_24125.htm","id":9964266,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/04/26/matter_of_glusing_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T05:09:17.464303Z","date_created":"2024-04-29T16:08:21.849865Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4d2f274cda88f67972cd217a90da89ba9fd34663","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Glusing (2024 NY Slip Op 24125)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\nMatter of Glusing\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 24125\n\n\nDecided on April 26, 2024\n\n\nSurrogate's Court, Monroe County\n\n\nCiaccio, S.\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Burea","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9964266],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9497476/matter-of-glusing/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Glusing","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 24125"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9497476,"court":"Surrogate's Court, Monroe County","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Surr. Ct., Monroe Cty.","court_id":"nysurctmonroe","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-04-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":68477385,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:30:44.683270Z","date_created":"2024-04-26T20:11:01.180215Z","score":{"bm25":17.863766}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2212210,2591246,5533005,5535779,5538120,5728511,5779452,5831462,5856120,5885999,5909593,5937341,5954810,5976107,5990280,5995609,6067195,6152404,9964266],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_24125.htm","id":9964089,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/04/26/matter_of_glusing.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:28:10.380878Z","date_created":"2024-04-26T20:11:01.192703Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"41c04d83452e0c54c15438cd68e31dad6c29f710","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Glusing (2024 NY Slip Op 24125)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\nMatter of Glusing\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 24125\n\n\nDecided on April 26, 2024\n\n\nSurrogate's Court, Monroe County\n\n\nCiaccio, J.\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Burea","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9964089],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9418992/kevan-anglin-v-state-of-florida/","attorney":"","caseName":"KEVAN ANGLIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9418992,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-08-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-0818","docket_id":67677266,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:11:31.400111Z","date_created":"2023-08-09T15:05:42.600394Z","score":{"bm25":17.790104}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[543867,1292040,1296557,1671237,1860468,1923309,6012427,7751810],"download_url":"https://edca.4dca.org/DCADocs/2022/0818/220818_DC05_08092023_102421_i.pdf","id":9554554,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/08/09/kevan_anglin_v._state_of_florida.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T06:43:07.707147Z","date_created":"2023-08-09T15:05:42.601918Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3715db4d8abb69e9c3c5a59f810e831616ffbc8d","snippet":"       DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA\n                              FOURTH DISTRICT\n\n                       KEVAN WALLACE ANGLIN,\n                             Appellant,\n\n                                     v.\n\n                          STATE OF FLORIDA,\n                               Appellee.\n\n                               No. 4D22-818\n\n                             [August 9, 2023]\n\n  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.\nLucie  County;    R","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9554554],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10306180/william-corey-holliday-v-the-state-of-wyoming/","attorney":"","caseName":"William Corey Holliday v. The State of Wyoming","caseNameFull":"","citation":["561 P.3d 335","2024 WY 139"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":10306180,"court":"Wyoming Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Wyo.","court_id":"wyo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-12-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S-24-0162","docket_id":69507936,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-13T19:50:51.614554Z","date_created":"2024-12-31T16:21:54.723707Z","score":{"bm25":17.498274}},"neutralCite":"2024 WY 139","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2625233],"download_url":"https://documents.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions/Holliday%20S-24-0162.pdf","id":10772768,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/12/31/william_corey_holliday_v._the_state_of_wyoming.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-13T19:50:51.647219Z","date_created":"2024-12-31T16:21:54.738093Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7abfc7facac57d36e754ff8bf63e312c1c68b072","snippet":"                IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING\n\n                                        2024 WY 139\n\n                                                           OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2024\n\n                                                                   December 31, 2024\n\n\n WILLIAM COREY HOLLIDAY,\n\n Appellant\n (Defendant),\n\n v.                                                         S-24-0162\n\n THE STATE OF WYOMING,\n\n Appellee\n (Plaintiff).\n\n                    Appeal from the District Cou","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10772768],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5344956/people-v-sieck/","attorney":"John W. Suthers, Attorney General, John T. Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee, ' Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Andrea R. Gammell, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant","caseName":"People v. Sieck","caseNameFull":"The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Hank Taylor SIECK","citation":["351 P.3d 502","2014 COA 23","2014 WL 972153","2014 Colo. App. LEXIS 436"],"citeCount":12,"cluster_id":5344956,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-03-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals No. 12CA1850","docket_id":61692628,"judge":"Loeb, Nieto, Yogt","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:47:43.409974Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:13:35.064981Z","score":{"bm25":17.04788}},"neutralCite":"2014 COA 23","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5177749,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:22:42.502246Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:13:35.081824Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOpinion by\nJUDGE YOGT *\nDefendant, Hank Taylor Sieck, appeals the order of restitution entered following his conviction for vehicular assault. We affirm.\nI. Background\n{1 Defendant was driving a car in excess of 110 miles per hour after consuming aleohol and drugs. He lost control of the car. One of the two passengers (J.P.) was ejected fro","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5177749],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9417558/in-the-matter-of-the-marriage-of-angela-anne-lynch-childers-and-james/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Marriage of Angela Anne Lynch Childers and James Abraham Childers, III v. the State of Texas","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9417558,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Texarkana","court_id":"txctapp6","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-08-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"06-23-00007-CV","docket_id":67657381,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:08:01.913774Z","date_created":"2023-08-02T08:12:23.481693Z","score":{"bm25":16.830616}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1692315],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=14154&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa06%5cOpinion","id":9414613,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/08/01/in_the_matter_of_the_marriage_of_angela_anne_lynch_childers_and_james.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:08:01.926690Z","date_created":"2023-08-02T08:12:23.497161Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"26eadf5e53159b7b88e69aa1172e3b79b3875a83","snippet":"                    In the\n              Court of Appeals\nSixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana\n\n\n                  No. 06-23-00007-CV\n\n\n\n       IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF\n       ANGELA ANNE LYNCH CHILDERS AND\n           JAMES ABRAHAM CHILDERS, III\n\n\n\n      On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1\n                  Parker County, Texas\n             Trial Court No. CIV-20-0362\n\n\n\n\n      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.\n        Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9414613],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10014302/the-people-of-the-state-of-colorado-v-zachary-eugene-babcock/","attorney":"","caseName":"The People of the State of Colorado v. Zachary Eugene Babcock","caseNameFull":"","citation":["535 P.3d 981","2023 COA 49"],"citeCount":1451,"cluster_id":10014302,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20CA1678","docket_id":68977493,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:08:00.047118Z","date_created":"2024-07-25T17:04:19.026273Z","score":{"bm25":16.746792}},"neutralCite":"2023 COA 49","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[148484,1349833,2464040,4024888,4271642,4317362,4538049,5157249,10480615],"download_url":"https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/people-v-babcock-20ca1678-934150255/content","id":10480903,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/06/08/the_people_of_the_state_of_colorado_v._zachary_eugene_babcock.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:07:59.982660Z","date_created":"2024-07-25T17:04:19.050918Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fbf5429db9b400b0bda40d0c5542abe1e8bc39d9","snippet":"\n      1\n    2023 COA 49 The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,  v.  Zachary Eugene Babcock, Defendant-Appellant. No. 20CA1678Court of Appeals of Colorado, Second DivisionJune 8, 2023\n \n          SUMMARY\n \n \n          A\n division of the court of appeals concludes that, when the\n Colorado Supreme Court held i","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10480903],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9683687/state-of-tennessee-v-rodney-heatherly/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Rodney Heatherly","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9683687,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-06-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2023-00264-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":68875085,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T02:17:01.300764Z","date_created":"2024-06-21T17:36:01.258656Z","score":{"bm25":16.70943}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1043920,1043936,1057566,1077285,1083697,1723621,2193996,2432634],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/UNSIGNED-M2023-0264-CCA-HEATHERLY.pdf","id":10150299,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/06/21/state_of_tennessee_v._rodney_heatherly.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T16:26:21.627434Z","date_created":"2024-06-21T17:36:01.262629Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c8414adfa52bcd5c649194bf55945ae7205c2c64","snippet":"                                                                                          06/21/2024\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                         AT NASHVILLE\n                           Assigned on Briefs April 9, 2024\n\n             STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RODNEY HEATHERLY\n\n                 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lawrence County\n                        No. 36829 M. Caleb Bayless, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10150299],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This is an appeal from the trial court's order of restitution. The Appellant asserts error, and the State concedes. After review, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new restitution hearing."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10596785/shaun-jeff-snow-v-the-people-of-the-state-of-colorado/","attorney":"","caseName":"Shaun Jeff Snow v. The People of the State of Colorado","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 CO 32"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10596785,"court":"Supreme Court of Colorado","court_citation_string":"Colo.","court_id":"colo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-05-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23SC775","docket_id":70390399,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-05T20:03:42.620029Z","date_created":"2025-06-03T06:03:18.890437Z","score":{"bm25":16.616528}},"neutralCite":"2025 CO 32","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2584926,4150443,4238321,4238387,4262384,4358637,4456705,4456707,4517947,4535063,9432491,10480615,10485637,11086462],"download_url":"https://colorado.vlex.io/en/vid/snow-v-people-1081251816/content","id":11063373,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/05/27/shaun_jeff_snow_v._the_people_of_the_state_of_colorado_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T15:21:26.718328Z","date_created":"2025-06-03T06:03:18.902755Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ae83a986a9d1736c7c05fac18dd6c048a31d8d1e","snippet":"\n \n \n \n 1\n 2025 CO 32 Shaun Jeff Snow, Petitioner ","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://colorado.vlex.io/en/vid/snow-v-people-1081251816/content","id":11060446,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/05/27/shaun_jeff_snow_v._the_people_of_the_state_of_colorado.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T20:41:33.310298Z","date_created":"2025-05-28T19:03:50.998540Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"771d409ed2c0dff93384d91dd0fe2acd9f66a590","snippet":"\n      1\n    2025 CO 32 Shaun Jeff Snow, Petitioner  v.  The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent No. 23SC775Supreme Court of Colorado, En BancMay 27, 2025\n \n          \n Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals\n Case No. 21CA2074\n \n \n          Judgment\n Reversed\n \n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11063373,11060446],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9434430/anadarko-petroleum-corporation-v-glenn-hegar-comptroller-of-public/","attorney":"","caseName":"Anadarko Petroleum Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9434430,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi","court_id":"txctapp13","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-10-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"13-21-00335-CV","docket_id":67904049,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:09:51.261738Z","date_created":"2023-10-21T17:12:04.139127Z","score":{"bm25":16.534704}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[106528,6109064],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=56727&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa13%5cOpinion","id":9892249,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/10/19/anadarko_petroleum_corporation_v._glenn_hegar_comptroller_of_public.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:09:51.273407Z","date_created":"2023-10-21T17:12:04.140326Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f7cf0c37d655119961fb8930c8ee677dc5cfbe49","snippet":"                      NUMBER 13-21-00335-CV\n\n                        COURT OF APPEALS\n\n               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n\n                 CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG\n\nANADARKO PETROLEUM\nCORPORATION,                                                        Appellant,\n\n                                    v.\n\nGLENN HEGAR, COMPTROLLER\nOF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE\nSTATE OF TEXAS, AND KEN\nPAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL\nOF THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                              Appellees.\n\n\n    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9892249],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6675336/in-the-interest-of-dr-minor-child/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Interest of D.R., Minor Child","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6675336,"court":"Court of Appeals of Iowa","court_citation_string":"Iowa Ct. App.","court_id":"iowactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-07-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-0276","docket_id":63654726,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:43:34.039962Z","date_created":"2022-07-20T15:04:40.637437Z","score":{"bm25":16.400122}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1596315,2088951,2229802,3429297],"download_url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/15099/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion","id":6554342,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/20/in_the_interest_of_d.r._minor_child.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T20:29:54.300567Z","date_created":"2022-07-20T15:04:40.642221Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1f5c6e4c6c5e2229fe8eb2e7bd04753bf838496b","snippet":"                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA\n\n                                   No. 21-0276\n                               Filed July 20, 2022\n\n\nIN THE INTEREST OF D.R.,\nMinor Child.\n\nD.R., Minor Child.\n       Appellant.\n________________________________________________________________\n\n      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens,\n\nAssociate Juvenile Judge.\n\n\n\n      A juvenile appeals an order for restitution in a delinquency proceeding.\n\nAFFIRMED.\n\n\n\n     ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6554342],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3008827/american-family-mutual-insurance-company-v-ancf-acquisition-corporation/","attorney":"Law Office of Roger Moore, Roger Moore, W. Bryant Bodie, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant., White and Steele, P.C., Grant R. Curry, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.","caseName":"American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. AN/CF Acquisition Corporation","caseNameFull":"AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AN/CF ACQUISITION CORPORATION D/B/A Go Courtesy Ford, Defendant-Appellee","citation":["2015 COA 129","361 P.3d 1098","2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 1401","2015 WL 5260350"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":3008827,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-09-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals 14CA1820","docket_id":2866193,"judge":"Loeb, Rothenberg, Roy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T16:47:45.154706Z","date_created":"2015-10-08T17:10:50.976061Z","score":{"bm25":16.381912}},"neutralCite":"2015 COA 129","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1098525,1268962,1273421,1312223,1362676,1395961,1991957,2467835,2533833,2610653,2618726,2619023,3313032,3762317],"download_url":"http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9921&courtid=1","id":3008827,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2015/09/10/american_family_mutual_insurance_company_v._ancf_acquisition_corporation.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T01:58:06.923209Z","date_created":"2015-10-08T17:02:57.727071Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"23fd403ef8fd404773ad7ad400fe631c0ff6600f","snippet":"\n\n\n  Opinion by\n \n\n  CHIEF JUDGE LOEB\n \n\n  T1 Plaintiff, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant, AN/CF Acquisition Corporation d/b/a Go Courtesy Ford, and the court's order denying American Family's cross-motion for summary judgment. We reverse the judgment and remand the case with direction","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3008827],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4674480/city-of-franklin-tennessee-v-w-l-hailey-co-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"City of Franklin, Tennessee v. W. L. Hailey & Co., Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4674480,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-10-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2018-01535-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":16404296,"judge":"Presiding Judge J. Steven Stafford","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:52:35.556142Z","date_created":"2019-10-30T21:10:20.031965Z","score":{"bm25":16.34863}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8279,"cites":[111693,577141,672378,698444,705085,714950,776133,1044019,1057660,1060390,1203744,1219172,1275243,1400410,1405425,1460491,1498587,1664025,1666523,1676071,1685987,1794707,1984924,2007673,2055758,2107848,2128734,2169219,2395452,2409007,2418026,2447947,2449918,2540358,4394253],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/cityoffranklintennesseev.w.l.hailey.opn_.pdf","id":4451733,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/10/30/city_of_franklin_tennessee_v._w._l._hailey__co._inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:01:57.275306Z","date_created":"2019-10-30T21:10:20.041223Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4f20db50b4f6af0bc3fd2df186c016f2e95572ba","snippet":"                                                                                       10/30/2019\n               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                           AT NASHVILLE\n                                August 13, 2019 Session\n\nCITY OF FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE v. W. L. HAILEY & CO., INC. ET AL.\n\n              Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County\n                      No. 46766 Joseph A. Woodruff, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4451733],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Appellant city appeals from the dismissal of its negligent misrepresentation claim on the basis of the economic loss doctrine, arguing that Tennessee law recognizes an exception to the economic loss doctrine for negligent misrepresentations. Because we conclude that Tennessee law does not recognize a negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss doctrine, we affirm the decision of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10635120/interest-of-jw/","attorney":"","caseName":"Interest of J.W.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 S.D. 38"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10635120,"court":"South Dakota Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"S.D.","court_id":"sd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"30810","docket_id":70826178,"judge":"Patricia J. DeVaney","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-17T19:52:02.672125Z","date_created":"2025-07-17T15:12:59.115222Z","score":{"bm25":16.33503}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[901227,901276,901693,902090,2713949,8245192,9405865,9515646,9810242,9974549,10803000,10817865],"download_url":"https://ujs.sd.gov/media/cvtlernv/30810.pdf","id":11101707,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/16/interest_of_j.w..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T23:09:04.112716Z","date_created":"2025-07-17T15:12:59.123505Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7dbae6228cc5a63fd4b0e25c8bf7acc06463302e","snippet":"#30810-r-PJD\n2025 S.D. 38\n\n                            IN THE SUPREME COURT\n                                    OF THE\n                           STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA\n\n                                   ****\n\n                            THE PEOPLE OF THE\n                         STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA\n                      IN THE INTEREST OF J.W., child,\n                       and concerning A.B., Respondent.\n\n                                   ****\n\n                  APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COU","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11101707],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}