{"count":208083,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0zNS43NDUxNTUmcz03NzkxODImdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0xMC0wNiZwPTI%3D&q=POLICY+TYPES+AND+FORMS+Insurance+Law&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7334145/hartford-cas-ins-v-swapp-law-pllc/","attorney":"*1211Christopher C. Frost, John A. Little, Jr., Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Birmingham, AL, Gary L. Johnson, Jennifer H. Mastrorocco, Richards Brandt Miller Nelson, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff., Justin W. Starr, Kirton McConkie, L. Rich Humpherys, Humpherys Law PLLC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants., Jill N. Parrish, United States District Judge *1212Plaintiff Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (\"Hartford\") moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Hartford argues that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Swapp Law, PLLC and James Craig Swapp (collectively \"Swapp Law\") in connection with the civil action Wilcox, et al. v. Swapp Law PLLC, et al. , Case No. 2:17-cv-275, 2017 WL 6541514 (E.D. Wash. 2017) (the \"Underlying Action\"). The court heard oral argument on the motion on December 5, 2018 and took the matter under advisement. The court now GRANTS the motion., Hartford argues that the claims in the Underlying Action are not covered by the Policy because they fall under two separate exclusions. The first excludes coverage for claims arising solely from federal or state statute (the \"Statutory Exclusion\"). The second excludes coverage for claims arising from materials distributed in violation of a statute (the \"Distribution Exclusion\"). Hartford seeks a declaratory judgment that it is neither required to defend nor indemnify Swapp Law. Swapp Law asks the court to decide whether there is a duty to defend but requests the court defer ruling on the duty to indemnify., \"After the pleadings are closed ... a party may move for judgment on the *1213pleadings.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The court evaluates a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion using the same standard as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motion. Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke , 698 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing Park Univ. Enters. v. Am. Cas. Co. , 442 F.3d 1239, 1244 (10th Cir. 2006) ). The court must \"accept all facts pleaded by the non-moving party as true and grant all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in favor of the same.\" Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). \"A motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted unless the moving party has clearly established that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\" Id. (internal quotation marks omitted)., In deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court may consider documents that are attached to the complaint or that are referred to in the complaint if the authenticity of the documents is not in question and the \"documents are central to the plaintiff's claim.\" BV Jordanelle, L.L.C. v. Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. , 830 F.3d 1195, 1201 n.3 (10th Cir. 2016). In this case, the court will consider the complaint in the Underlying Action and the Policy itself. These documents are central to the case, their authenticity is not contested, and the documents were either attached or referenced in the complaint., Under Utah Law,3 the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are contractual and \"hinge[ ] on the particular contractual terms of the insurance policy defining the scope of the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify.\" Fire Ins. Exch. v. Estate of Therkelsen , 27 P.3d 555, 561, 559 (Utah 2001). Under the plain language *1214of the Policy, Hartford's duty to defend turns on whether Hartford is potentially liable for a damage award against Swapp Law. \"We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any 'suit' seeking [covered] damages. However, we will have no duty to defend the insured against any 'suit' seeking damages for ... 'personal and advertising injury' to which this insurance does not apply.\" See Policy, Business Liability Form § A (1)(a)., To determine whether Hartford is potentially liable for the claimed damages, the court applies the \"eight corners\" rule and compares the language found in the four corners of the Policy to the allegations made in the four corners of the underlying complaint. Basic Research, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co. , 297 P.3d 578, 580 (Utah 2013) (citing Equine Assisted Growth & Learning Ass'n v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. , 266 P.3d 733 (Utah 2011) ).4 \"When those allegations, if proved, could result in liability under the policy, then the insurer has a duty to defend.\" Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. , 931 P.2d 127, 133 (Utah 1997) (citing Deseret Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. , 714 P.2d 1143, 1146-47 (Utah 1986) ). But \"[w]here the allegations [in the complaint], if proved, show 'there is no potential liability [under the policy], there is no duty to defend.' \" Basic Research, 297 P.3d at 580 (Utah 2013) (quoting Deseret Fed. Sav. & Loan , 714 P.2d at 1147 )., Hartford argues that it has no potential liability for any damages in the Underlying Action because the class action plaintiffs in the Underlying Action only allege violations of the DPPA. According to Hartford, those claims are excluded from coverage under the Policy by two exclusions: the Statutory Exclusion and the Distribution Exclusion. The court agrees with Hartford that there is no duty to defend because the damages claimed in the Underlying Action are excluded under the Statutory Exclusion. Because the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, Hartford also has no duty to indemnify Swapp Law for its alleged violations of the DPPA. In light of the court's holding that the Statutory Exclusion applies, the court need not and does not consider the applicability of the Distribution Exclusion., Hartford argues that the damages claimed in the Underlying Action are not covered by the Policy because they arise from violations of a federal statute and thus are excluded by the Policy's Statutory Exclusion. The Statutory Exclusion excludes from the Policy coverage for claims for personal and advertising injury \"arising out of the violation of a person's right of privacy created by any state or federal act.\" Policy, Business Liability Form § B (1)(p)(11). There is, however, an exception to the Statutory Exclusion that states \"this exclusion does not apply to liability for damages that the insured would have in the absence of such state or federal act.\" Id. While Swapp Law does not contest the applicability of the exclusion itself, it argues that the claims at issue in the Underlying Action fall under the exception to the exclusion., Here, the only claim for relief asserted in the Underlying Action is a claim for relief alleging violations of the DPPA. Compl. at 21, Wilcox et al. v Swapp Law PLLC et al. , No. 2:17-cv-275, 2017 WL 6541514 (E.D. Wash. 2017). The DPPA explicitly prohibits the release of \"personal information\" and \"highly restricted personal information.\" By definition, the statute creates a right to recover damages for violation of a privacy right. See Maracich v. Spears , 570 U.S. 48, 51-52, 133 S.Ct. 2191, 186 L.Ed.2d 275 (2013) (Congress \"enacted the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994\" because it was \"[c]oncerned that personal information collected by States in the licensing of motor vehicle drivers was being released-even sold-with resulting loss of privacy for many persons.\"); see also Collier v. Dickinson , 477 F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (11th Cir. 2007) (\"We find that the plain language of the DPPA clearly, unambiguously, and expressly creates a statutory right which may be enforced by enabling aggrieved individuals to sue persons who disclose their personal information in violation of the DPPA.\"). When a party asserts a claim under the DPPA, the party alleges a violation of the privacy right protected by the statute. Thus, the claim brought against Swapp Law in the Underlying Action is a claim for a \"personal and advertising injury\" that \"aris[es] out of the violation of a person's right of privacy created by any state or federal act.\" The damages claimed in the Underlying Action therefore fall under the Statutory Exclusion., Having concluded that the Statutory Exclusion applies, the court turns its attention to the applicability of the exception to the exclusion. The Policy states that the Statutory \"[E]xclusion does not apply to liability for damages that the insured would have in the absence of such state or federal act.\" Policy, Business Liability Form § B (1)(p)(11). The meaning of this exception is disputed by the parties. Hartford alleges that the exception requires the insured to establish the existence of a separate cause of action for damages under Washington law that plaintiffs could have included in the Underlying Action. Because no such cause of action exists under Washington common law, Hartford maintains that the exception does not apply. In contrast Swapp Law asserts that because the DPPA protects privacy rights, the only issue is whether a \"right of privacy\" has been invaded, not whether the invasion is actionable under Washington common law., The burden is on Swapp Law to establish that the exception applies, thus any ambiguity should be resolved in Hartford's *1216favor. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Warwick Dyeing Corp. , 26 F.3d 1195, 1200 (1st Cir. 1994) ; see also cases collected, supra note 2 at 1213. But the language of the exception is unambiguous. It explicitly requires that there be \"liability for damages\" absent the statute, not just a violation of some amorphous right. The court must therefore decide whether Swapp Law would be liable for the alleged damages in the absence of the DPPA., Because the contractual duty to defend is conditioned on potential liability for damages, the court must look beyond the four corners of the complaint. See Fire Ins. Exch. v. Estate of Therkelsen , 27 P.3d 555, 561 (Utah 2001) (If \"the parties make the duty to defend dependent on whether there is actually a 'covered claim or suit,' extrinsic evidence would be relevant to a determination of whether a duty to defend exists.\"). In this case, the court must look to the facts as alleged to determine if they could sustain a potential claim for damages arising from personal and advertising injury. See Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. , 957 F.Supp.2d 1135, 1153 (C.D. Cal. 2013), aff'd , 635 F. App'x 351 (9th Cir. 2015) (looking to the facts of the complaint, not just the pleadings). And as the conduct at issue in the Underlying Action occurred in Washington, the court finds that Washington state law should apply to the underlying claims.5 Therefore, the court must look to Washington law to determine if the class action plaintiffs in the Underlying Action could have asserted a claim for damages against Swapp Law in the absence of a state or federal statute., Washington tort law protects an \"individual's interest in leading a secluded and private life, free from the prying eyes, ears and publications of others.\" Grinenko v. Olympic Panel Prod. , 2008 WL 5204743, at *7 (W.D. Wash. 2008) (citing Eastwood v. Cascade Broadcasting Co. , 106 Wash.2d 466, 722 P.2d 1295 (1986) ). Specifically, Washington law recognizes \"four types of invasion of privacy claims: (1) intrusion upon seclusion,6 (2) appropriation or exploitation of a plaintiff's name,7 (3) public disclosure of private facts,8 and (4) placing another in false light.9 \" Id. Of the four, only the intrusion *1217upon seclusion claim could possibly give rise to the claims for damages asserted in the Underlying Action., To assert a claim for \"intrusion upon seclusion\" under Washington Law in accordance with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (1977), the plaintiff must establish:","caseName":"Hartford Cas. Ins. v. Swapp Law, PLLC","caseNameFull":"HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE v. SWAPP LAW, PLLC and James Craig Swapp","citation":["358 F. Supp. 3d 1210"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7334145,"court":"District Court, D. Utah","court_citation_string":"D. Utah","court_id":"utd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-12-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 2:17-cv-01130","docket_id":64322631,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:40:19.460391Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:10:36.040877Z","score":{"bm25":58.0878}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7252065,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:53:15.949523Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:10:36.046779Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n1. An intentional intrusion, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of plaintiff, or his private affairs;\n2. With respect to the matter or affair which plaintiff claims was invaded, that plaintiff had a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy;\n3. The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and\n4. Tha","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7252065],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10617647/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-family-law-rules-of-procedure-forms/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure - Forms","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10617647,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC2024-0003","docket_id":70639983,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-26T15:03:50.119524Z","date_created":"2025-06-26T15:03:50.070203Z","score":{"bm25":51.687634}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/2453936","id":11084235,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/26/in_re_amendments_to_the_florida_family_law_rules_of_procedure_-_forms.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T20:41:12.756308Z","date_created":"2025-06-26T15:03:50.072208Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"895ffb1782b723df7b3198df106022cedd760c52","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                             ____________\n\n                          No. SC2024-0003\n                            ____________\n\n IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES\n               OF PROCEDURE – FORMS.\n\n                           June 26, 2025\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n     The Florida Bar’s Family Law Rules Committee has filed a\n\nreport proposing amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of\n\nProcedure Forms 12.900(a) (Disclosure from Nonlawyer), 12.900(b)\n\n(Noti","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11084235],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5044342/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-supreme-court-approved-family-law/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms—Nomenclature","caseNameFull":"IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS—NOMENCLATURE","citation":["235 So. 3d 357"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5044342,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-02-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC17-1948","docket_id":60294212,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Lawson, Lewis, Pariente, Polston, Quince","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:29:15.010046Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T01:23:45.586035Z","score":{"bm25":46.294308}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4858202,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:09:23.859239Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T01:23:45.676734Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":" PER CURIAM. Pursuant to the procedures approved by this Court in Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure & Family Law Forms, 810 So.2d 1,13-14 (Fla. 2000), this Court has internally reviewed the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms and has determined that amendments to the existing forms are needed in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4858202],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1559748/amendments-to-approved-family-law-forms/","attorney":"","caseName":"Amendments to Approved Family Law Forms","caseNameFull":"","citation":["20 So. 3d 173"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":1559748,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-03-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC08-2058","docket_id":751733,"judge":"Per Curiam","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T04:38:42.807583Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T12:02:16.967721Z","score":{"bm25":44.980083}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[4858165],"download_url":null,"id":1559748,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T09:49:11.588404Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:46:18.545263Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"4fb6f2acda23fae16a87608c2763cb98393c596d","snippet":"\n20 So.3d 173 (2009)\nIn re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS.\nNo. SC08-2058.\nSupreme Court of Florida.\nMarch 26, 2009.\nPER CURIAM.\nDuring the 2008 legislative session, the Legislature amended numerous sections of chapter 61, Florida Statutes, redesignating it \"Dissolution of Marriage; Support; Time-sharing,\" and amended various sections","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1559748],"source":"L","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4994197/in-re-amendments-to-florida-supreme-court-approved-family-law-forms/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Amendments to Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms","caseNameFull":"In re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS","citation":["122 So. 3d 320","38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 617","2013 WL 4734603","2013 Fla. LEXIS 1892"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4994197,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-09-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC13-532","docket_id":60234662,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:16:45.877971Z","date_created":"2021-08-21T04:32:24.783698Z","score":{"bm25":44.842327}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4804736,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:51:44.331022Z","date_created":"2021-08-21T04:32:24.882314Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nPursuant to the procedures approved by this Court in Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure and Family Law Forms, 810 So.2d 1, 13-14 (Fla.2000), this Court has internally reviewed the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms and has determined that revisions to several forms should be made in light of the enactment of section 732.703, Florida Statutes (2012), entitled “Effect of d","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4804736],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6623537/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rules-of-juvenile-procedure-florida-family/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, and Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6623537,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-07-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC22-1","docket_id":63591314,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:29:11.633180Z","date_created":"2022-07-14T15:01:46.884063Z","score":{"bm25":41.698986}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pre_opinion_content_download/843199","id":6499895,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/14/in_re_amendments_to_florida_rules_of_juvenile_procedure_florida_family.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T20:13:00.422157Z","date_created":"2022-07-14T15:01:46.884958Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"41efdb16e710f1ecc4d88da8e054f1cfea33b307","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                            ____________\n\n                            No. SC22-1\n                            ____________\n\n   IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE\n PROCEDURE, FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE,\n  AND FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW\n                      FORMS.\n\n                           July 14, 2022\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n     This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed\n\namendments to the Florida Rules of Juven","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6499895],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2493833/in-re-amend-to-the-fla-family-law-forms/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Amend. to the Fla. Family Law Forms","caseNameFull":"","citation":["59 So. 3d 792"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2493833,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-12-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC08-2058","docket_id":2361433,"judge":"Per Curiam","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:16:31.534927Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:38:02.320405Z","score":{"bm25":40.488476}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[4858165,4864137],"download_url":null,"id":2493833,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:11:30.738995Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:55:24.268860Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"de3bf40dc36bc8888062e33af72f5133f47258e8","snippet":"\n59 So.3d 792 (2010)\nIn re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS.\nNo. SC08-2058.\nSupreme Court of Florida.\nDecember 16, 2010.\nJudge John Charles Lenderman, Sixth Judicial Circuit, St. Petersburg, FL; Judge Renee Goldenberg, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Margaret Pearce, Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc., St. Petersburg, FL; Jack ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2493833],"source":"L","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7401767/in-re-disapproval-of-commercial-insurance-policy-forms/","attorney":"Michael R. Cole argued the cause for appellants Insurance Company of North America, et al. (Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, attorneys; Mr. Cole, of counsel; Jeanne M. Bratsafolis and Barbara Laczynski, on the brief)., Andrea R. Grundfest, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Samuel F. Fortunato, Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Insurance (Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Joseph L. Yannotti, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Grundfest and Jacqueline Dileo, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).","caseName":"In re Disapproval of Commercial Insurance Policy Forms","caseNameFull":"IN THE MATTER OF DISAPPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL INSURANCE POLICY FORMS OF INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, CENTURY INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, CIGNA FIRE UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, ATLANTIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY","citation":["264 N.J. Super. 228","624 A.2d 587","1993 N.J. Super. LEXIS 157"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7401767,"court":"New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division","court_citation_string":"N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.","court_id":"njsuperctappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1993-04-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":64392190,"judge":"Michels","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:58:20.423005Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T21:17:06.023228Z","score":{"bm25":40.207058}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7320838,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:43:40.765895Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T21:17:06.032921Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nThe opinion of the court was delivered by\nMICHELS, P.J.A.D.\nPetitioners, Insurance Company of North America, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, CIGNA Insurance Company, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, CIGNA Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Century Indemnity Insurance Company, CIGNA Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, Bankers Standard Insurance Company and Atlantic Employers Insuran","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7320838],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5049844/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-supreme-court-approved-family-law-forms/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms","caseNameFull":"In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS","citation":["59 So. 3d 792","35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 734","2010 Fla. LEXIS 2116","2010 WL 5129227"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":5049844,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-12-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC08-2058","docket_id":60299743,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:30:34.921851Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T02:06:31.633844Z","score":{"bm25":39.960197}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4864137,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:11:40.618982Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T02:06:31.708209Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nUnder Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure & Family Law Forms, 810 So.2d 1, 13-14 (Fla.2000), the Court internally reviews and maintains the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms. In this matter, the Court previously adopted amendments to multiple Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms and adopted three new forms. In re Amendments to Fla. Supreme Court Approv","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4864137],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5044311/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-supreme-court-approved-family-law-forms/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms","caseNameFull":"In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS","citation":["20 So. 3d 173","34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 298","2009 Fla. LEXIS 785","2009 WL 775400"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":5044311,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-03-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC08-2058","docket_id":60294181,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:29:15.295264Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T01:16:45.841645Z","score":{"bm25":38.684864}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4858165,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:09:19.724708Z","date_created":"2021-08-26T01:16:45.907160Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nDuring the 2008 legislative session, the Legislature amended numerous sections of chapter 61, Florida Statutes, redesignating it “Dissolution of Marriage; Support; Time-sharing,” and amended various sections of chapters 409, 414, 445, 741, 742, 753, and 827, Florida Statutes. See ch. 2008-61, Laws of Fla. (effective October 1, 2008). In general, this legislation removes references to the concepts of “custo","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4858165],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7854348/nev-policy-research-inst-v-cannizzaro/","attorney":"","caseName":"NEV. POLICY RESEARCH INST. v. CANNIZZARO","caseNameFull":"","citation":["507 P.3d 1203","2022 NV 28"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7854348,"court":"Nevada Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Nev.","court_id":"nev","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-04-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"82341","docket_id":64871797,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:30:03.038874Z","date_created":"2022-08-05T15:10:04.998502Z","score":{"bm25":38.569}},"neutralCite":"2022 NV 28","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1201256,1351800,1411532,1426946,1428788,1433287,1451244,1587732,2542811,2570177,2581090,2615512,2625442,4301959,6780051,8368182,9585385,9590387,9844354,9879615,9888823],"download_url":"https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=60709&csIID=60709&deLinkID=854167&onBaseDocumentNumber=22-12580","id":7798214,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/04/21/nev._policy_research_inst._v._cannizzaro_2.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:30:03.295421Z","date_created":"2022-08-05T15:10:05.002666Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"60f083e695874b704a1c242ff02a2485ede1ebd0","snippet":"                                        138 Nev, Advance Opinion   2.b\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA\n\n\n                NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH                    No. 82341\n                INSTITUTE, INC., A NEVADA\n                DOMESTIC NONPROFIT\n                CORPORATION,\n                Appellant,                                 FILED\n                vs.\n                NICOLE J. CANNIZZARO, AN                   APR 2 1 2022\n                INDIVIDUAL ENGA","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=60709&csIID=60709&deLinkID=854167&onBaseDocumentNumber=22-12580","id":6333830,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/04/21/nev._policy_research_inst._v._cannizzaro_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-11T18:36:29.676306Z","date_created":"2022-04-21T17:08:15.906657Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7cde55c71408af1d12d0a3a0d710bb41eccc4ad0","snippet":"                                        138 Nev, Advance Opinion   2.b\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA\n\n\n                NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH                    No. 82341\n                INSTITUTE, INC., A NEVADA\n                DOMESTIC NONPROFIT\n                CORPORATION,\n                Appellant,                                 FILED\n                vs.\n                NICOLE J. CANNIZZARO, AN                   APR 2 1 2022\n                INDIVIDUAL ENGA","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=60709&csIID=60709&deLinkID=854167&onBaseDocumentNumber=22-12580","id":6335904,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/04/21/nev._policy_research_inst._v._cannizzaro.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-11T18:38:22.580430Z","date_created":"2022-04-28T16:07:22.876143Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"036054c0712282b467ea3666e5976acff568acdc","snippet":"                                        138 Nev, Advance Opinion   2.b\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA\n\n\n                NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH                    No. 82341\n                INSTITUTE, INC., A NEVADA\n                DOMESTIC NONPROFIT\n                CORPORATION,\n                Appellant,                                 FILED\n                vs.\n                NICOLE J. CANNIZZARO, AN                   APR 2 1 2022\n                INDIVIDUAL ENGA","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6335904,7798214,6333830],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4464116/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-supreme-court-approved-family-law-forms-/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re: Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms - Nomenclature","caseNameFull":"","citation":["235 So. 3d 357"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4464116,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-02-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC17-1948","docket_id":6289808,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:52:32.573623Z","date_created":"2018-02-01T16:10:04.847167Z","score":{"bm25":38.092308}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2812209],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2018/sc17-1948.pdf","id":4241369,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/02/01/in_re_amendments_to_the_florida_supreme_court_approved_family_law_forms_-.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:35:41.517210Z","date_created":"2018-02-01T16:10:04.854112Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a69a745849c01f075901a1dba0ff9c1f59d12b7e","snippet":"          Supreme Court of Florida\n                                   ____________\n\n                                  No. SC17-1948\n                                  ____________\n\n      IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT\n        APPROVED FAMILY LAW FORMS—NOMENCLATURE.\n\n                                 [February 1, 2018]\n\nPER CURIAM.\n\n      Pursuant to the procedures approved by this Court in Amendments to the\n\nFlorida Family Law Rules of Procedure & Family Law Forms, 810 So. 2d 1, 13","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4241369],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4598602/sentry-select-insurance-v-maybank-law-firm/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sentry Select Insurance v. Maybank Law Firm","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4598602,"court":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C.","court_id":"sc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-03-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"27806","docket_id":14675251,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:30:00.750256Z","date_created":"2019-03-11T21:34:15.897385Z","score":{"bm25":37.73158}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1189787,1204816,1253273,1304191,1304874,1401937,1406392,1577007,1640309,1688102,1751141,1912174,1992292,2048147,2066116,2106601,2227403,2237453,2330240,2348521,2506629,2514196,2570627,2570772,3879468],"download_url":"http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27806.pdf","id":4375855,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/03/11/sentry_select_insurance_v._maybank_law_firm.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:09:19.267196Z","date_created":"2019-03-11T21:34:15.904367Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5a680feabf76a1138c80c4d64455bd0e4fcf7319","snippet":"                      THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n                           In The Supreme Court\n\n             Sentry Select Insurance Company, Plaintiff,\n\n             v.\n\n             Maybank Law Firm, LLC, and Roy P. Maybank,\n             Defendants.\n\n             Appellate Case No. 2016-001351\n\n                            CERTIFIED QUESTIONS\n\n            ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES\n       DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n             J. Michelle Childs, United S","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4375855],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"On a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, we find an insurer may maintain a direct malpractice action against counsel hired to represent its insured, under the limitations we will describe in the opinion."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10517602/texas-public-policy-v-us-dept-of-state/","attorney":"","caseName":"Texas Public Policy v. U.S. Dept. of State","caseNameFull":"","citation":["136 F.4th 554"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10517602,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","court_citation_string":"5th Cir.","court_id":"ca5","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":"2025-02-04","dateFiled":"2025-05-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24-50189","docket_id":69600796,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:39:32.484841Z","date_created":"2025-05-05T18:00:40.915790Z","score":{"bm25":37.08113}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[23145,26440,55934,71499,110709,186713,313449,522913,682713,772307,1195569,2661103,4415331,4448817,5135889,7842856,9426368,9431619,9432431,9432947,9469783],"download_url":"http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50189-CV0.pdf","id":10984190,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/05/texas_public_policy_v._u.s._dept._of_state.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T22:28:49.301634Z","date_created":"2025-05-05T18:00:40.918143Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9cca639338b58d498ae1118f5c287253d32d1e25","snippet":"Case: 24-50189      Document: 66-1      Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/05/2025\n\n\n\n\n        United States Court of Appeals\n             for the Fifth Circuit\n                            ____________\n                                                               United States Court of Appeals\n                                                                        Fifth Circuit\n                              No. 24-50189\n                            ____________                              FILED\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10984190],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"United States Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10589949/winston-anderson-v-intel-corporation-investment-policy-committee/","attorney":"","caseName":"Winston Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee","caseNameFull":"","citation":["137 F.4th 1015"],"citeCount":13,"cluster_id":10589949,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","court_citation_string":"9th Cir.","court_id":"ca9","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":"2023-10-05","dateFiled":"2025-05-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-16268","docket_id":66707769,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-17T21:39:34.337695Z","date_created":"2025-05-22T17:00:43.948801Z","score":{"bm25":37.058083}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[17236,118261,118372,405063,424728,615595,711127,1023320,1261874,1310416,1768750,2801430,4247092,4289143,4300926,4536243,4568425,4584054,6111798,6351813,7002691,7804572,8213474,8408668,8986201,9430111,9435068,9435339,9487314,9505933,9962865,10495611],"download_url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/05/22/22-16268.pdf","id":11056537,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/22/winston_anderson_v._intel_corporation_investment_policy_committee.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T00:57:23.567054Z","date_created":"2025-05-22T17:00:43.954983Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6779514b2e5c46df76cd4313e472a31537cea4fd","snippet":"              FOR PUBLICATION\n\n  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n       FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT\n\nWINSTON R. ANDERSON;                No. 22-16268\nCHRISTOPHER M. SULYMA, and all\nothers similarly situated,            D.C. Nos.\n                                    3:19-cv-04618-\n           Plaintiffs-Appellants,         VC\n                                    3:15-cv-04977-\n v.                                       VC\n                                    5:16-cv-00522-\nINTEL CORPORATION                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11056537],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4502108/sentry-select-insurance-v-maybank-law-firm/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sentry Select Insurance v. Maybank Law Firm","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4502108,"court":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C.","court_id":"sc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-05-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"27806","docket_id":6957176,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:02:42.363305Z","date_created":"2018-05-30T13:43:16.952778Z","score":{"bm25":36.821133}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1189787,1204816,1253273,1304191,1304874,1406392,1577007,1640309,1688102,1751141,1912174,1992292,2048147,2066116,2106601,2227403,2237453,2330240,2348521,2506629,2514196,2570627,2570772,3879468],"download_url":"http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27806.pdf","id":4279361,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/05/30/sentry_select_insurance_v._maybank_law_firm.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:02:05.469486Z","date_created":"2018-05-30T13:43:16.961904Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"164595b314963a5dc214e4348a7e7a9b8ccedafe","snippet":"                        THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n                             In The Supreme Court\n\n             Sentry Select Insurance Company, Plaintiff,\n\n             v.\n\n             Maybank Law Firm, LLC, and Roy P. Maybank,\n             Defendants.\n\n             Appellate Case No. 2016-001351\n\n                              CERTIFIED QUESTIONS\n\n                  J. Michelle Childs, United States District Court Judge\n\n                                 Opinion No. 27806\n                   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4279361],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7108010/center-for-reproductive-law-policy-v-bush/","attorney":"Simon Heller, The Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, New York, N.Y. (Janet Benshoof, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Gregory G. Katsas, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C. (Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; Robert M. Loeb and Sharon Swingle, Attorneys, Department of Justice Civil Division; James B. Comey, United States Attorney; Gideon A. Schor, Chief Appellate Attorney, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.","caseName":"Center for Reproductive Law & Policy v. Bush","caseNameFull":"The CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE LAW AND POLICY, Janet Benshoof, Anika Rahman, Katherine Hall Martinez, Julia Ernst, Laura Katzive, Melissa Upreti, Christina Zampas v. George W. BUSH, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Colin Powell, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, Andrew Natsios, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development","citation":["304 F.3d 183","2002 WL 31045183"],"citeCount":11,"cluster_id":7108010,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2002-09-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Docket No. 01-6168","docket_id":64096361,"judge":"Leval, McLaughlin, Sotomayor","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T12:39:34.906255Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T04:15:09.710532Z","score":{"bm25":36.401585}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109077,109100,109523,109524,110599,111258,112087,112593,112747,112870,117947,118096,454555,481969,582701,728957,769614,774588,776218,777313,2620886,6983871,7003400,8984703,9795100],"download_url":null,"id":7014046,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T15:18:09.046409Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T04:15:09.718474Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nSOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge:\nThis suit was brought by a domestic organization that advocates reproductive rights and by attorneys employed by the organization. Plaintiffs challenge the so-called “Mexico City Policy,” pursuant to which the United States government requires foreign organizations, as a condition of receiving government funds, to agree neither to perform abortions nor to promote abortion generally. Plaintiffs maint","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7014046],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10647851/white-v-fcw-law-offices/","attorney":"","caseName":"White v. FCW Law Offices","caseNameFull":"","citation":["352 Conn. 718"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10647851,"court":"Supreme Court of Connecticut","court_citation_string":"Conn.","court_id":"conn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-08-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC21076","docket_id":71026373,"judge":"Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Bright","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-01T03:03:59.399929Z","date_created":"2025-08-05T12:02:20.767938Z","score":{"bm25":36.317936}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":11297977,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/08/05/white_v._fcw_law_offices_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-01T03:27:21.009670Z","date_created":"2026-04-01T02:55:10.747194Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c38d7155feda9d856dccceb9a42b61b028c5994f","snippet":"Page 24                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              August 5, 2025\n\n\n\n\n          718                         AUGUST, 2025                   352 Conn. 718\n                                   White v. FCW Law Offices\n\n\n                        FRANK CHARLES WHITE v. FCW\n                            LAW OFFICES ET AL.\n                                (SC 21076)\n                         Mullins, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Ecker,\n                              Alexander","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR352/CR352.59.pdf","id":11114438,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/08/05/white_v._fcw_law_offices.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T21:37:06.163395Z","date_created":"2025-08-05T12:02:20.798479Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0b1722702268b9aab10430d1ba6b1bec428e4e75","snippet":"************************************************\n   The “officially released” date that appears near the\nbeginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be\npublished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it\nis released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the\nbeginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-\nion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-\ncially released” date appearing in the opinion.\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncor","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action to recover damages for, inter alia, identity theft, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex, where the named defendant was defaulted for failure to appear; there- after, the case was tried to the court, Swienton, J.; judgment for the plaintiff, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, Alvord, Elgo and Suarez, Js., which reversed in part the trial court's judgment, and the plaintiff, on the granting of certifica- tion, appealed to this court. Reversed in part; judg- ment directed. Frank Charles White, self-represented, the appel- lant (plaintiff). Jeffrey Gentes and Annie Chen, Lauren Taylor and Uma Menon, certified legal interns, filed a brief for the National Association of Consumer Advocates, Connect- icut chapter, as amicus curiae.","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11297977,11114438],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff attorney sought to recover damages from the defendants for, inter alia, their alleged theft of his identity and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.), in connection with their use of the plaintiff's name and attorney registration number to defraud certain individuals. The trial court rendered a default judgment for the plaintiff and awarded him compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000 on his identity theft claim and $300,000 in punitive damages on his CUTPA claim, as well as attorney's fees and costs. On appeal, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court had improperly failed to award the plaintiff treble damages pursuant to the statute (§ 52-571h (b)) governing actions for damages resulting from identity theft but that the plaintiff could not recover both punitive damages under CUTPA and treble damages under § 52-571h (b) because such an award would violate the principle that a plaintiff is entitled to recover only once for losses sustained in connection with the same transaction, occurrence or event. Accordingly, the Appellate Court remanded the case for vacatur of those awards and with direction to award the plaintiff treble damages in the amount of $450,000 for identity theft. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court, claiming that the Appellate Court had incorrectly determined that he could not recover both punitive damages under CUTPA and treble damages under § 52-571h (b). Held: The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to treble damages under § 52-571h (b) but incorrectly concluded that he could not also recover punitive damages under CUTPA, and, accordingly, this court reversed in part the Appellate Court's judgment and remanded the case to that court with direction to reinstate the trial court's punitive dam- ages award under CUTPA. Section 52-571h (b) requires that a plaintiff who proves identity theft be awarded ''the greater of one thousand dollars or treble damages,'' and, because the trial court found that the plaintiff had suffered damages in connection with his identity theft claim in the amount of $150,000, the Appellate Court correctly determined that the plaintiff was entitled to recover three times that amount, or $450,000. Damages are duplicative in violation of the rule precluding double recovery, however, not simply because their availability arises out of the same transac- 352 Conn. 718 AUGUST, 2025 719 White v. FCW Law Offices tion, occurrence or event, but because they redress the same legal harm, and the law may provide a plaintiff multiple, cumulative remedies to redress different types of harm, even if precipitated by a single incident. Unlike treble damages under § 52-571h (b), punitive damages under CUTPA are not intended to compensate a plaintiff for his losses but, rather, to punish wrongdoers and to deter wrongdoing in commerce, nothing in CUTPA or in § 52-571h (b), which expressly allows a trial court to award a successful plaintiff ''other remedies provided by law,'' indicates that the remedies pro- vided under those statutes are intended to be exclusive or in lieu of any other remedies, and, whereas § 52-571h (b) requires the trial court to award treble damages to a prevailing plaintiff, the award of punitive damages under CUTPA is left to a court's discretion. Argued April 10—officially released August 5, 2025"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10145237/energy-policy-advocates-v-securities-and-exchange-commission/","attorney":"","caseName":"Energy Policy Advocates v. Securities and Exchange Commission","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10145237,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2023-0507","docket_id":69273889,"judge":"Judge Rudolph Contreras","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-10-17T22:05:02.697765Z","date_created":"2024-10-17T22:05:02.611182Z","score":{"bm25":35.97974}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":710,"cites":[118462,186713,187254,187269,187372,187517,375896,393156,416834,537606,552329,556586,592176,669641,672024,1735386,2659078,2823399,3004921,3164651,4288400,4409491,4688998,4700846,7222940,7248315,7248663,7252994,7838335,9426368,9431814,9432431,9439387,9464311,9499370,9946829],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cv0507-20","id":10611837,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/17/energy_policy_advocates_v._securities_and_exchange_commission.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T22:45:17.068996Z","date_created":"2024-10-17T22:05:02.638115Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"810a2234f60165d858bd2105a4442ee11e096339","snippet":"                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nENERGY POLICY ADVOCATES,                         :\n                                                 :\n       Plaintiff,                                :      Civil Action No.:      23-507 (RC)\n                                                 :\n       v.                                        :      Re Document No.:       15\n                                                 :\nSECURITIES","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10611837],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/779182/center-for-reproductive-law-and-policy-v-bush/","attorney":"","caseName":"Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush","caseNameFull":"The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Janet Benshoof, Anika Rahman, Katherine Hall Martinez, Julia Ernst, Laura Katzive, Melissa Upreti, Christina Zampas v. George W. Bush, in His Official Capacity as President of the United States, Colin Powell, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State, Andrew Natsios, in His Official Capacity as Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development","citation":["304 F.3d 183","2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18814"],"citeCount":51,"cluster_id":779182,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","court_citation_string":"2d Cir.","court_id":"ca2","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2002-09-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"01-6168","docket_id":241842,"judge":"","lexisCite":"2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18814","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T19:54:14.559423Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T23:06:43.252641Z","score":{"bm25":35.745155}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109077,109100,109523,109524,110599,111258,112087,112593,112747,112870,117947,118096,454555,481969,582701,728957,769614,774588,776218,777313,2620886,6983871,7003400,7014046,8984703,9795100],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/304/304.F3d.183.01-6168.html","id":779182,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T13:37:59.217524Z","date_created":"2012-04-18T13:13:45Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4be3c53bda13bb087dbe10fa9b91a9dcf7149e3a","snippet":"304 F.3d 183\n    The CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE LAW AND POLICY, Janet Benshoof, Anika Rahman, Katherine Hall Martinez, Julia Ernst, Laura Katzive, Melissa Upreti, Christina Zampas, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.George W. BUSH, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Colin Powell, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, Andrew Natsios, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Agency for International Deve","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[779182],"source":"R","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}