{"count":1360035,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz01OC41MTg1MjQmcz0xMDY3MzY1MiZ0PW8mZD0yMDI2LTA5LTI4JnA9Mg%3D%3D&q=PROPERTIES+OF+MATTER&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2800748/matter-of-ez-properties-llc-v-city-of-plattsburgh/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of EZ Properties, LLC v. City of Plattsburgh","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of EZ Properties, LLC, Appellant, v. City of Plattsburgh Et Al., Respondents","citation":["128 A.D.3d 1212","9 N.Y.S.3d 440"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":2800748,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-05-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"519924","docket_id":2656873,"judge":"Garry","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:51:19.982924Z","date_created":"2015-05-14T14:15:24.308284Z","score":{"bm25":79.399445}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2224604,5537075,5539023,5673146,5685896,5805136,5852588,6051446],"download_url":"http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2015/519924.pdf","id":2800748,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/05/14/matter_of_ez_properties_llc_v._city_of_plattsburgh.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T23:25:14.259089Z","date_created":"2015-05-14T14:10:07.091774Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"74486a6744f9bb355a07b36019fd7659266ee3e4","snippet":"\n\n\n  Garry, J.\n \n\n  Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Muller, J.), entered December 31, 2013 in Clinton County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.\n \n\n  In 2011, petitioner applied to the Planning Board of respondent City of Plattsburgh for site plan approval to develop an apartment complex. The plans were approved with a","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2800748],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10659969/matter-of-schellace-bressingham/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Schellace (Bressingham)","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Removal of Frank Schellace Guardian of the Property and Person of Bertha Bressingham A Incapacitated Person.","citation":["2025 NY Slip Op 25190"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10659969,"court":"New York Supreme Court, Nassau County","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.","court_id":"nysupctnss","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-08-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 133307/2019","docket_id":71191589,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-15T17:27:29.215717Z","date_created":"2025-08-25T12:10:55.892460Z","score":{"bm25":78.29777}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_25190.htm","id":11125449,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/08/19/matter_of_schellace_bressingham_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T21:48:11.927233Z","date_created":"2025-08-22T19:35:16.810764Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"12a39f4fcb7d0b7babe4dea1176c4f31f955eb15","snippet":"Matter of Schellace (Bressingham) (2025 NY Slip Op 25190)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\nMatter of Schellace (Bressingham)\n\n\n2025 NY Slip Op 25190\n\n\nDecided on August 19, 2025\n\n\nSupreme Court, Nassau County\n\n\nKnobel, J.\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to J","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[2817432,5773793,5775782,5814536,5840188,6175776],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_25190.htm","id":11126556,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/08/19/matter_of_schellace_bressingham_2.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:32:46.669608Z","date_created":"2025-08-25T12:10:55.948213Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f8fb204f670680001a115efc5e581c7c97283c13","snippet":"Matter of Schellace (Bressingham) (2025 NY Slip Op 25190)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\nMatter of Schellace (Bressingham)\n\n\n2025 NY Slip Op 25190\n\n\nDecided on August 19, 2025\n\n\nSupreme Court, Nassau County\n\n\nKnobel, J.\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to J","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11125449,11126556],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5297520/in-the-matter-of-the-assessments-for-tax-year-2012-of-certain-properties/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2021 OK 7","481 P.3d 883"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5297520,"court":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla.","court_id":"okla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-02-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":61397034,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-11T16:28:19.184062Z","date_created":"2021-11-15T21:15:41.055593Z","score":{"bm25":75.06198}},"neutralCite":"2021 OK 7","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[89904,92780,95946,98078,99024,101187,103260,106114,107320,111784,161900,167840,168884,227246,517009,1156173,1162088,1165254,1173341,1175264,1180878,1182191,1182725,1195236,1196577,1199798,1210571,1242846,1253218,1270185,1291080,1291731,1363103,1367790,1375939,1387127,1430657,1435254,1441183,1444876,1455794,1485593,1486181,1486977,1546991,1795037,1866748,2084242,2141288,2197962,2216183,2264962,2449049,2550334,2552665,2571494,2588683,2605268,2613591,2622225,2623119,2625953,3151806,3552374,3798239,3799607,3807891,3815614,3824134,3825723,3828253,3828537,3828690,3830299,3834439,3834898,3882891,3896095,4088615,4295002,4371032,4452919,4454183,4468225,4533613,4587069,4637084,5144817,5145098,5145285,5147262,5154221,5154819,5156787,5157088,5159169,5161420,5166726,5166915,5167117,5178112,5529511,6428415,6535569,6559460,6634829,6635434,6679027,7038067,7095000,8791069,9151103,9419332,9420759,9422249,9428239,9428531,9431967,9433666,9434102,9434638,9541262,9551616,9553255,9566563,9583928,9591099,9600474,9604939,9609916,9615529,9630496,9636522,9646977,9785395,9788777,9788810,9793865,9795760,9796054,9815801,9843320],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=487550","id":4658826,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2021/02/09/in_the_matter_of_the_assessments_for_tax_year_2012.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T13:34:54.902932Z","date_created":"2021-02-09T19:13:33.135581Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0b0f13b11bfc45f91df81ba0e519ff11d1fd3752","snippet":"\n\t\tOSCN Found Document:IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 2012\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n  \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 20122021 OK 7Case Number: 118243Decided: 02/09/2021THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA\nCite as: 2021 OK 7, __ P.3d __\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\nNOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEA","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[89904,92780,95946,98078,99024,101187,103260,103816,105018,106113,106114,106271,107320,110435,110581,111784,112403,117961,118226,118442,136987,161900,167840,168884,227246,672316,799979,1195236,1210571,1242846,1253218,1270185,1276102,1291731,1379002,1455794,1474100,1485593,1486181,1486977,1546991,1795037,2084242,2197962,2264962,2364949,2449049,2550334,2552665,2566861,2571494,2588683,2598606,2598730,2622122,2622225,2623119,2625103,2625953,2627717,3132690,3151806,3214950,3552374,3882891,3896095,4088615,4371032,4452919,4532093,4557876],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=487550","id":5126082,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2021/02/09/in_the_matter_of_the_assessments_for_tax_year_2012_of_certain_properties_13.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-11T16:28:19.000128Z","date_created":"2021-11-15T21:15:41.059549Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c35819c36d581e16e738a913e51ce45e3c818d3c","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=487550","id":4664149,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2021/02/09/in_the_matter_of_the_assessments_for_tax_year_2012_of_certain_properties_7.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T13:39:59.048370Z","date_created":"2021-03-02T17:12:34.049283Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"23e250fcce6a94467a99b022e676a0375b24f62c","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=487550","id":4660426,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2021/02/09/in_the_matter_of_the_assessments_for_tax_year_2012_of_certain_properties_2.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T13:36:26.071077Z","date_created":"2021-02-16T17:26:41.661095Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ea4b8ec97425acffc92d1da4915fb4305faa5cf5","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=487550","id":4662168,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2021/02/09/in_the_matter_of_the_assessments_for_tax_year_2012_of_certain_properties_4.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T13:38:08.869623Z","date_created":"2021-02-23T17:14:00.864882Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"67b629e09372bbf28960ccd463475ceb0b5ce844","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=487550","id":4678972,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2021/02/09/in_the_matter_of_the_assessments_for_tax_year_2012_of_certain_properties_8.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T13:53:38.047552Z","date_created":"2021-04-20T18:13:22.059481Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"71bf987f9c8ebfaddfa00d88e8ab51e83af49ff8","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4664149,4678972,4662168,4660426,4658826,5126082],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10122569/matter-of-thakker/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of THAKKER","caseNameFull":"","citation":["28 I. & N. Dec. 843"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10122569,"court":"Board of Immigration Appeals","court_citation_string":"BIA","court_id":"bia","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-09-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ID 4080","docket_id":69179979,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-09-20T13:00:28.251518Z","date_created":"2024-09-20T13:00:28.110113Z","score":{"bm25":74.474464}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2280243,2362430,4534776,4576552,4968746,6073952,6074054,6074421,9515838,9817941,9824286,9835509],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-09/4080.pdf","id":10589170,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/07/01/matter_of_thakker.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T21:31:26.398040Z","date_created":"2024-09-20T13:00:28.130443Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bf96051896700f9c52525597024ca820eeb71ae8","snippet":"Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2024)                                  Interim Decision #4080\n\n\n\n\n  Matter of Bharatkumar Girishkumar THAKKER, Respondent\n                            Decided September 20, 2024\n\n                           U.S. Department of Justice\n                    Executive Office for Immigration Review\n                        Board of Immigration Appeals\n\n\n(1) The assumption in Matter of Jurado that a retail theft offense involves an intent to\n   permanently deprive a victim of ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10589170],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"(1) The assumption in Matter of Jurado that a retail theft offense involves an intent to permanently deprive a victim of their property is inconsistent with the categorical approach as currently articulated by the Supreme Court. Matter of Jurado, 24 I&N Dec. ‍29 (BIA 2006), aff'd sub. nom. Jurado‑Delgado v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 498 F. App'x 107 (3d Cir. 2009), overruled in part."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2559817/matter-of-emrey-properties-inc-v-baranello/","attorney":"APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Sinnreich Kosakoff & Messina, LLP, Central Islip (Vincent J. Messina, Jr., and Timothy F. Hill of counsel), for appellants., Forchelli, Curto, Deegan, Schwartz, Mineo, Cohn & Terrana, LLP, Uniondale {Andrea Tsoukalas of counsel), for respondent.","caseName":"Matter of Emrey Properties, Inc. v. Baranello","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of Emrey Properties, Inc., Respondent, v. Patricia A. Baranello Et Al., Appellants","citation":["13 N.Y.3d 915","895 N.Y.S.2d 294","2010 NY Slip Op 191","922 N.E.2d 881"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":2559817,"court":"New York Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"NY","court_id":"ny","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-01-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"55 SSM 51","docket_id":1278708,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:56:16.937862Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T15:30:54.977549Z","score":{"bm25":73.4647}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2228831],"download_url":null,"id":2559817,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:43:07.474408Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T10:21:53.711551Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"051e5e8a94e19fa7c5e95cbc2159c965aab25225","snippet":"\n13 N.Y.3d 915 (2010)\n895 N.Y.S.2d 294\n2010 NY Slip Op 191\nIn the Matter of EMREY PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent,\nv.\nPATRICIA A. BARANELLO et al., Appellants.\nNo. 55 SSM 51\nCourt of Appeals of New York.\nDecided January 12, 2010.\n*916 Sinnreich Kosakoff & Messina, LLP, Centra","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2559817],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3194159/matter-of-ag-properties-of-kingston-llc-v-town-of-ulster-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of AG Properties of Kingston, LLC v. Town of Ulster Assessor","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of AG Properties of Kingston, LLC, Appellant, v. Town of Ulster Assessor Et Al., Respondents. (And Another Related Proceeding.); In the Matter of Ulster Business Complex, LLC, Appellant, v. Town of Ulster Assessor Et Al., Respondents. (And Another Related Proceeding.); In the Matter of Techcity 52, LLC, Appellant, v. Town of Ulster Assessor Et Al., Respondents. (And Another Related Proceeding.); In the Matter of Techcity 22, 23 & 24, LLC, Appellant, v. Town of Ulster Assessor Et Al., Respondents. (And Another Related Proceeding.); In the Matter of AG Property of Kingston LLC Et Al., Appellants, v. Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Ulster Et Al., Respondents","citation":["138 A.D.3d 1273","29 N.Y.S.3d 688"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":3194159,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-04-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"521281","docket_id":3053637,"judge":"Lynch, Peters, Garry, Rose","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T18:29:13.490735Z","date_created":"2016-04-14T14:06:22.708816Z","score":{"bm25":73.29549}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2148926,2762400,5537907,5542181,6084977],"download_url":"http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2016/521281.pdf","id":3194053,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/04/14/matter_of_ag_properties_of_kingston_llc_v._town_of_ulster_assessor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T04:04:07.638212Z","date_created":"2016-04-14T14:06:22.715252Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1df59ab2b6389036f65afab606ad2c62eb3eeedd","snippet":"\n\n\n  Lynch, J.\n \n\n  Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Melkonian, J.), entered September 3, 2014 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioners’ applications, in nine proceedings pursuant to RPTL article 7, to reduce the 2010, 2011 and 2012 tax assessments on certain real property.\n \n\n  Petitioners commenced these proceedings pursuant to RPTL article 7 challenging","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3194053],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10593074/rocket-properties-llc-v-the-city-of-tulsa/","attorney":"","caseName":"ROCKET PROPERTIES LLC v. THE CITY OF TULSA","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 OK CIV APP 8"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10593074,"court":"Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla. Civ. App.","court_id":"oklacivapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-12-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"121092","docket_id":69908008,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-11T16:54:29.724929Z","date_created":"2025-05-27T19:12:00.696509Z","score":{"bm25":70.03137}},"neutralCite":"2025 OK CIV APP 8","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[104261,1121101,1122488,1124352,1149820,1173341,1257517,2331223,2600563,3820807,5147567,5154959,6104411,6325803,9424049,9561139,9590631],"download_url":"https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=547840","id":11059662,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/12/20/rocket_properties_llc_v._the_city_of_tulsa_3.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-11T16:54:29.717503Z","date_created":"2025-05-27T19:12:00.705524Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"87da426ebe68cf9eb233dbf2094098be482b4fdf","snippet":"\n\t\tOSCN Found Document:ROCKET PROPERTIES LLC vs THE CITY OF TULSA\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n  \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPrevious Case\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTop Of Index\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tThis Point in Index\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCitationize\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tNext Case\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=547840","id":10847305,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/12/20/rocket_properties_llc_v._the_city_of_tulsa.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T20:14:47.362082Z","date_created":"2025-04-17T20:15:39.970764Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8d5ffe822f7fe4003c532c7e5dd04969a1747dbf","snippet":"\n\t\tOSCN Found Document:ROCKET PROPERTIES LLC vs THE CITY OF TULSA\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n  \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPrevious Case\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTop Of Index\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tThis Point in Index\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCitationize\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tNext Case\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=547840","id":11056733,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/12/20/rocket_properties_llc_v._the_city_of_tulsa_2.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T20:37:49.466014Z","date_created":"2025-05-22T21:13:32.827475Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"68615b95f6311991a08b80239e05fae16d84e997","snippet":"\n\t\tOSCN Found Document:ROCKET PROPERTIES LLC vs THE CITY OF TULSA\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n  \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPrevious Case\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTop Of Index\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tThis Point in Index\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCitationize\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tNext Case\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11059662,10847305,11056733],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"¶1 Defendant, City of Tulsa [City] appeals a jury verdict of $1,895,000.00 in this inverse condemnation case on the grounds Plaintiff, Rocket Properties, LLC [Rocket], failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, and thus, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Further, Rocket counter-appeals the trial court's rulings of its award to Rocket of prejudgment and post-judgment interest."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3134078/matter-of-winterton-properties-llc-v-town-of-mamakating-zoning-board-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Winterton Properties, LLC v. Town of Mamakating Zoning Board of Appeals","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of Winterton Properties, LLC, Appellant, v. Town of Mamakating Zoning Board of Appeals Et Al., Respondents, Et Al., Respondents","citation":["132 A.D.3d 1141","18 N.Y.S.3d 743"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":3134078,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-10-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"520885","docket_id":2991670,"judge":"Garry, McCarthy, Peters, Rose","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T17:50:12.158719Z","date_created":"2015-10-22T15:54:02.333591Z","score":{"bm25":69.83709}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[5683232,5846178,5853454,9744913],"download_url":"http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2015/520885.pdf","id":3134078,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/10/22/matter_of_winterton_properties_llc_v._town_of_mamakating_zoning_board_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T03:21:43.196609Z","date_created":"2015-10-22T15:09:56.984507Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9f32d11f4ab67b7d55d2a2f409d7d6ed40ab0936","snippet":"\n\n\n  Garry, J.\n \n\n  Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McGuire, J.), entered April 3, 2015 in Sullivan County, which partially dismissed petitioner’s application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to, among other things, review a determination of respondent Town of Mamakating Zoning Board of Appeals interpreting the Town Code ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3134078],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4676930/in-the-matter-of-the-assessment-for-tax-year-2012-of-certain-real/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2019 OK CIV APP 2","432 P.3d 1071"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4676930,"court":"Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla. Civ. App.","court_id":"oklacivapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-04-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":16442887,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-23T21:55:21.414952Z","date_created":"2019-11-07T22:12:50.984466Z","score":{"bm25":66.45382}},"neutralCite":"2019 OK CIV APP 2","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=483417","id":4359838,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2018/04/06/in_the_matter_of_the_assessment_for_tax_year_2012_of_certain_real.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T08:37:06.743730Z","date_created":"2019-01-17T18:38:50.364990Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"253f9f606b01c97b6a1f3ae889896ba6aaf53e74","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t<","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[1196237,1227569,1307744,2304624,2544670,2639115,4397810],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=483417","id":4454183,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2018/04/06/in_the_matter_of_the_assessment_for_tax_year_2012_of_certain_real_3.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:03:41.222299Z","date_created":"2019-11-07T22:12:50.992002Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"690f9b72cecd9883ad9392863604fece40f27c2b","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t<","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=483417","id":4359949,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2018/04/06/in_the_matter_of_the_assessment_for_tax_year_2012_of_certain_real_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T08:37:13.387110Z","date_created":"2019-01-17T21:44:50.775558Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"69bdcc1d11e052e52ad3c2b9b6f9f2bd064c7287","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t<","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4359949,4359838,4454183],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10008062/matter-of-powell-nancy-k/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Powell (Nancy K.)","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Appointment of Judith L. Powell, as Guardian for the Personal Needs and LLOYD J. WEINSTEIN as Guardian for the Property Management of Nancy K., An Incapacitated Person, now","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 24198"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10008062,"court":"New York Supreme Court, Nassau County","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.","court_id":"nysupctnss","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-07-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 850023-I-2021","docket_id":68960893,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-19T20:12:34.343633Z","date_created":"2024-07-19T20:12:34.288146Z","score":{"bm25":65.51025}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2012491,2592124,2782210,6081967,7805372,9385030,9819853,9907701,9967488],"download_url":"https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_24198.htm","id":10474663,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/07/12/matter_of_powell_nancy_k..html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T17:58:43.581360Z","date_created":"2024-07-19T20:12:34.298710Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0300a58eed846be127b3703e312eeb80ca2851aa","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Powell (Nancy K.) (2024 NY Slip Op 24198)\n\n\n\n\n[*1]\n\n\nMatter of Powell (Nancy K.)\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 24198\n\n\nDecided on July 12, 2024\n\n\nSupreme Court, Nassau County\n\n\nKnobel, J.\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law R","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10474663],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4640923/matter-of-estate-of-hall/","attorney":"John D. Bullis (argued) and Brittany L. Hatting (on brief), Wahpeton, N.D., for petitioner and appellee., Ronald H. McLean (argued) and Ian McLean (on brief), Fargo, N.D., for respondent and appellant.","caseName":"Matter of Estate of Hall","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF Kandi Ann HALL, Deceased Tyson Hall, Personal Representative of the Estate of Kandi Ann Hall, Petitioner and Appellee v. Brianna McLaen, Respondent and Appellant and Brittany Fiala, Shayla Fiala, and W.H., Respondents","citation":["2019 ND 196","931 N.W.2d 482"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":4640923,"court":"North Dakota Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.D.","court_id":"nd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-07-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20190009","docket_id":15937263,"judge":"Tufte","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:43:14.481651Z","date_created":"2019-07-18T20:07:01.969796Z","score":{"bm25":61.724384}},"neutralCite":"2019 ND 196","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[897699,1161605,2243082,2798164,4212352,4226851,4384994,4419035],"download_url":"http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND196","id":4418176,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/07/18/estate_of_hall.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:38:32.696400Z","date_created":"2019-07-18T20:07:01.984763Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"079f29358af80d55fafa5401c7ed92e1803f361e","snippet":"\n\n\n  Tufte, Justice.\n \n\n\n   *483\n  \n  [¶1] Brianna McLaen appeals from an order granting Tyson Hall's petition for an elective share of the Estate of Kandi Ann Hall. McLaen argues the district court erred by determining Tyson Hall could claim an elective share of Kandi Hall's intestate estate and by deciding","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4418176],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"PROBATE - WILLS - TRUSTS","syllabus":"The surviving spouse of a decedent may claim an elective share of the decedent's testate or intestate estate. The conveyance of homestead property must be executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife or it is void and ineffective."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3149750/matter-of-kover/","attorney":"APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Law Office of Peter Wessel, PLLC, New York City (Peter Wessel of counsel), for appellants., Law Offices of Annette G. Hasapidis, Mt. Kisco (Annette G. Hasapidis of counsel), for respondent.","caseName":"Matter of Kover","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of Elihu Kover, Respondent, for the Appointment of a Guardian of the Person and Property of Eva Dworecki, an Alleged Incapacitated Person. Burton Citak Et Al., Nonparty Appellants","citation":["134 A.D.3d 64","19 N.Y.S.3d 228"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":3149750,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-10-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"401545/12","docket_id":3007394,"judge":"Andrias, Tom, Kapnick, Saxe","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T17:59:50.526295Z","date_created":"2015-10-27T16:11:20.247609Z","score":{"bm25":61.58497}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9819854,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T07:57:41.437216Z","date_created":"2023-09-01T06:40:51.683877Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nTom, J.P.\n(concurring). Nonparty attorneys Burton Citak and Donald L. Citak appeal from two orders, insofar as they imposed sanctions upon each of the Citaks in the sum of $7,500; *90ordered the Citaks to pay $12,639.18 in attorneys’ fees, $12,314 in costs for extraordinary guardianship services and $687.50 in costs for additional court evaluator services; and denied leg","type":"concurrence-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9819855,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T04:24:49.333840Z","date_created":"2023-09-01T06:40:51.686374Z"},"ordering_key":3,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nKapnick, J.\n(concurring). I concur with the opinion of Justice Andrias. However, I disagree with his criticism and distrust of Mr. Muster and concern about Mr. Muster’s impartiality and/or conflict of interest in this proceeding. Nevertheless, despite the dissent’s protestations to the contrary, that issue, and the issue of whether Mr. Muster should have been appointed the full guardian or coguardian of Dr. Dworecki’s property","type":"concurrence-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[2682948,2802672,5680112,5680699,5682010,5702315,5728511,5760846,5830622,5880121,6050393,6090540,6093723,6184107],"download_url":null,"id":9819853,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:39:19.955569Z","date_created":"2023-09-01T06:40:51.678236Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nAndrias, J.\nThe nonparty appellants, Burton Citak and Donald L. Citak, by their firm Citak & Citak, represented Dr. Eva Dworecki, the alleged incapacitated person (AIP), in this guardianship proceeding. In this appeal, there are two primary issues before us.\nThe first is whether the court abused its discretion when it imposed monetary sanctions and/or costs pur","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[2802672,5526292,5530171,5532446,5682010,5682940,5702315,5716735,5760846,5830521,5860844,5880121,5943344,5947809,6039733,6050393,6067255,6090540,6091616,6098405],"download_url":null,"id":9819856,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:39:19.958495Z","date_created":"2023-09-01T06:40:51.693276Z"},"ordering_key":4,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nSaxe, J.\n(dissenting). Supreme Court committed two egregious errors in this proceeding, one which most probably will never be corrected and the other which can and should be.\nThe first error, which is not the focus of this appeal but which informs all else that happened here, was the unlawful imposition of an article 81 guardianship on a 94-year-old Jewish survivor of Nazi Germany against her will, without her co","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[2682948,2802672,5526292,5530171,5532446,5680112,5680699,5682010,5682940,5702315,5716735,5728511,5760846,5830521,5830622,5860844,5880121,5943344,5947809,6039733,6039854,6050393,6067255,6090540,6091616,6093723,6098405,6184107],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_07802.htm","id":3149750,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2015/10/27/matter_of_kover.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T03:32:52.929164Z","date_created":"2015-10-27T16:06:49.929467Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"34fa626e6b9db6890fa998acaa338122d2c87514","snippet":"\r\n\r\nMatter of Kover (2015 NY Slip Op 07802)\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nMatter of Kover\r\n\r\n\r\n2015 NY Slip Op 07802\r\n\r\n\r\nDecided on October 27, 2015\r\n\r\n\r\nAppellate Division, First Department\r\n\r\n\r\nAndrias, J., J.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nPublished by New York ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3149750,9819853,9819854,9819855,9819856],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7477508/matter-of-rankin/","attorney":"The Law Office of Erin E. Rozzelle, PLLC, by Erin Rozzelle, for Appellant Bruce Adams., Hutchens Law Firm, Charlotte, by Jeffrey A. Bunda, for Petitioner-Appellee.","caseName":"Matter of Rankin","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF the Foreclosure of Real Property of a Deed of Trust Executed by Holly B. RANKIN and Darrin L. Rankin (Present Record Owner(s): Mozijah Bailey and Wendy Carolina Lopez) and (Darrin L. Rankin, as to a Life Estate only) in the original amount of $307,920.00 Dated October 4, 2006, recorded in Book 21173, Page 276, Mecklenburg County Registry Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., Substitute Trustee","citation":["799 S.E.2d 467","253 N.C. App. 657","2017 WL 2119423","2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 401"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7477508,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-05-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. COA16-771","docket_id":64478463,"judge":"Dillon","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T14:19:21.450777Z","date_created":"2022-07-29T01:40:36.838896Z","score":{"bm25":61.41736}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7399240,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T12:05:13.618453Z","date_created":"2022-07-29T01:40:36.845669Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nDILLON, Judge.\nThe superior court entered an order permitting the foreclosure of certain real property (\"Property\"). The Property owner (\"Owner\") appeals the order allowing the foreclosure to proceed on the sole ground that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (\"Trustee\") failed to present sufficient evidence that it was the holder of the debt which secured the Property. We affirm the superior court.\nAnalysis","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7399240],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6226662/cassara-properties-llc-v-town-of-greece/","attorney":"","caseName":"Cassara Properties, LLC v. Town of Greece","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of Cassara Properties, LLC v. Town of Greece","citation":["142 A.D.3d 1368","38 N.Y.S.3d 468"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6226662,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-09-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62588065,"judge":"Curran, Nemoyer, Scudder, Smith, Whalen","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:42:09.724973Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T20:09:05.364135Z","score":{"bm25":60.321983}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6093396,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T05:12:41.102899Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T20:09:05.379079Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nAppeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered April 7, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied the petition.\nIt is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.\nMemorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that petitioners’ content","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6093396],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6226660/cassara-properties-llc-v-town-of-greece/","attorney":"","caseName":"Cassara Properties, LLC v. Town of Greece","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of Cassara Properties, LLC v. Town of Greece","citation":["142 A.D.3d 1368","38 N.Y.S.3d 468"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6226660,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-09-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62588063,"judge":"Curran, Nemoyer, Scudder, Smith, Whalen","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:42:09.670558Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T20:09:04.931214Z","score":{"bm25":60.03228}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6093394,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:26:46.412489Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T20:09:04.945458Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nAppeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered April 7, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied the petition.\nIt is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.\nMemorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that petitioners’ content","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6093394],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10132573/in-the-matter-of-the-estate-of-evans/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EVANS","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 OK 65"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10132573,"court":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla.","court_id":"okla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-09-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"120854","docket_id":69169800,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-23T20:45:43.771447Z","date_created":"2024-10-10T05:08:57.643923Z","score":{"bm25":60.027767}},"neutralCite":"2024 OK 65","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1426392,2585452,2613436,3800328,3802162,3805196,3807019,3807341,3807921,3808542,3810734,3811350,3815532,3822176,3833963,3836181,4035386,4238523,4260792,4494041,4636736,5144951,5157630],"download_url":"https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=541894","id":10599174,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/09/17/in_the_matter_of_the_estate_of_evans_3.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-23T20:45:43.773403Z","date_created":"2024-10-10T05:08:57.655891Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a124997c2c34d090e6f5fc96059a1afa98ff7054","snippet":"\n\t\t\nOSCN Found Document:IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EVANS\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n  \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPrevious Case\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTop Of Index\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tThis Point in Index\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCitationize\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tNext Case\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPrint Only\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=541894","id":10586539,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/09/17/in_the_matter_of_the_estate_of_evans.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T15:49:13.722334Z","date_created":"2024-09-17T20:14:23.131467Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5b214ccd4359553b8ece52eb85ea4fb38345a775","snippet":"\n\t\t\nOSCN Found Document:IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EVANS\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n  \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPrevious Case\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTop Of Index\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tThis Point in Index\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCitationize\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tNext Case\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPrint Only\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10586539,10599174],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"¶ 0 Melissa Evans was involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident with a car being driven by Darrell D. Blaylock. Both Evans and a passenger in Blaylock's automobile, George D. Blaylock, were killed in the crash. Evan's son, Joshua Evans, initiated a probate proceeding and was named personal representative of his mother's estate. Later, Joshua Evans filed a motion seeking a court order declaring that Melissa Evan's house qualified for the homestead exemption. The probate court denied this request and Joshua Evans commenced an interlocutory appeal. We retained the case and now hold that the subject real property does not qualify for either a constitutional or probate homestead exemption."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4423780/in-re-matter-of-ackah/","attorney":"There is no evidence that Ms. Ackah received actual notice of the proceeding before the Clerk which resulted in the order allowing the sale of her Property. Based on its conclusion that the notice to Ms. Ackah was inadequate, the superior court granted Ms. Ackah's motion for relief from the Clerk's order and ordered that the sale of the Property to the Jones Family be set aside, restoring title to Ms. Ackah. The same day, the assistant clerk entered an order returning possession of the Property to Ms. Ackah.","caseName":"In Re Matter of Ackah","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF the Foreclosure Under That Powers Granted in Chapter 47F of the North Carolina General Statutes and in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Addison Reserve at the Park at Perry Creek Subdivision Recorded at Book 9318, Page 369, Et Seq., Wake County Registry Concerning Gina A. ACKAH","citation":["804 S.E.2d 794","255 N.C. App. 284","2017 WL 3860534","2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 750"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4423780,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-09-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"COA16-829","docket_id":6147444,"judge":"Murphy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:41:18.331960Z","date_created":"2017-09-05T12:10:24.904319Z","score":{"bm25":59.556164}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9878248,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:56:02.534117Z","date_created":"2023-09-27T16:50:47.756507Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nWe hold that the HOA's notice to Ms. Ackah of the proceeding before the Clerk did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 4 of our Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, we conclude that Ms. Ackah was entitled to some form of relief from the Clerk's order which had authorized the public sale of her Property.\nHowever, the superior court was constrained by ","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9878249,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:56:04.215078Z","date_created":"2023-09-27T16:50:47.760438Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMURPHY, Judge, dissenting.\nI agree with the Majority in so far as it holds that the HOA failed to provide Ackah with sufficient notice under Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure of its intent to enforce its statutory lien against the Property. However, I disagree with the Majority's holding that N.C.G.S. § 1-108 (2015) barred the trial court from granting Ackah any relief that affected Jones Family's title in the P","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[145663,1205566,1220051,1244722,1307143,3648120,3649196,3652606,3657035,3661048,3661840,3667170,3678354],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=35255","id":4201033,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/09/05/in_re_ackahâ.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:07:41.769393Z","date_created":"2017-09-05T12:10:24.909784Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"16c2d26b2861ac427e0c72ed3c3408dd51bb9be5","snippet":"             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                  No. COA16-829\n\n                              Filed: 5 September 2017\n\nWake County, No. 14 SP 3046\n\nIN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE UNDER THAT POWERS GRANTED\nIN CHAPTER 47F OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES AND IN\nTHE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR\nADDISON RESERVE AT THE PARK AT PERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION\nRECORDED AT BOOK 9318, PAGE 369, ET SEQ., WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY\nCONCERNING ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4201033,9878248,9878249],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Judicial sale of property good faith purchaser due diligence requirement for service of process"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2795375/matter-of-fernandez/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Fernandez","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of Julie Stoil Fernandez, Esq., as Guardian of the Property and Co-Guardian of the Person of Linda Salvati, an Incapacitated Person, Now Deceased, Respondent; George J. McCormack, Esq., Executor of Linda Salvati, Appellant","citation":["127 A.D.3d 584","8 N.Y.S.3d 108"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2795375,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-04-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"500088/02 -14890 14889 14888","docket_id":2651134,"judge":"Acosta, Gische, Kapnick, Richter, Saxe","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:48:33.529584Z","date_created":"2015-04-21T17:07:01.290125Z","score":{"bm25":59.351257}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2065134,5797054,5836113,5857789],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03297.htm","id":2795375,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2015/04/21/matter_of_fernandez.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T23:21:23.303209Z","date_created":"2015-04-21T17:05:16.178528Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3e21b7782a47e42d2a92a23eadb7a0621844cd8a","snippet":"\n\n\n  Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie E. Wilkins, J.), entered June 25, 2013, which, among other things, granted respondent guardian’s motion to confirm a referee’s report, dismissed appellant executor’s objections to the report, and awarded the guardian commissions, fees and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Orders, same court and Justice, entered January 22, 2014, which granted the guardia","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2795375],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2013585/matter-of-glen-properties/","attorney":"A. Dennis Terrell, Russell J. Passamano, Shanley & Fisher, P.C., Morristown, NJ, for Glen Properties, debtor and debtor-in-possession/appellant., Michael A. Lampert, Sheryl L. Newman, McManimon & Scotland, Newark, NJ, for Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass’n, ereditor/ap-pellee.","caseName":"Matter of Glen Properties","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF GLEN PROPERTIES, a New Jersey General Partnership, Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession/Appellant","citation":["168 B.R. 537","1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20014","1993 WL 669239"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":2013585,"court":"District Court, D. New Jersey","court_citation_string":"D.N.J.","court_id":"njd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1993-12-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. 92-4918 (DRD)","docket_id":1859560,"judge":"Debevoise","lexisCite":"1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20014","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T08:06:37.810054Z","date_created":"2015-10-13T21:46:28.399803Z","score":{"bm25":58.600338}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":843,"cites":[109530,110017,504715,533012,541751,601469,652920,1836273,1871984,1873470,1895646],"download_url":null,"id":2013585,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T15:50:14.511478Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:03:02.626917Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ed3b14d796b5691f6a3678513da26455d988d8fd","snippet":"\n168 B.R. 537 (1993)\nIn the MATTER OF GLEN PROPERTIES, a New Jersey general partnership, Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession/Appellant.\nCiv. No. 92-4918 (DRD).\nUnited States District Court, D. New Jersey.\nDecember 15, 1993.\nA. Dennis Terrell, Russell J. Passamano, Shanley & Fisher, P.C., Morristown, NJ, for Glen Properties, debtor and debtor-in-possession/appellant.\nM","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2013585],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10673652/spp-properties-llc-v-jones/","attorney":"","caseName":"SPP Properties, L.L.C. v. Jones","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 4375"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10673652,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-09-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"114740","docket_id":71379221,"judge":"Groves","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-18T15:13:43.684527Z","date_created":"2025-09-18T15:13:43.583155Z","score":{"bm25":58.518524}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 4375","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2700666,3752468,3766573,3777878,4261699,4269834,4287042,4532433,4540724,6701099,6760079,6763616,9948775,10514791,10753711,11089434,11089439],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2025/2025-Ohio-4375.pdf","id":11140239,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/09/18/spp_properties_l.l.c._v._jones.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:22:19.443372Z","date_created":"2025-09-18T15:13:43.608800Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9a5c9e190bd9534a73c85c4689809ce058ef7daa","snippet":"[Cite as SPP Properties, L.L.C. v. Jones, 2025-Ohio-4375.]\n\n\n                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA\n\nSPP PROPERTIES, L.L.C.,                                :\n\n                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                   :\n                                                               No. 114740\n                 v.                                    :\n\nBRIANNA JONES,              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11140239],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Forcible entry and detainer action; R.C. 1923.06; second cause of action; money-damages claim; misapplication of law; service; Civ.R 1; Civ.R. 3(A); Civ.R. 4-4.6; waiver of service; appearance; motion to quash. Judgment reversed. The trial court failed to comply with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure's service requirements and erred when it denied the defendant's motion to quash service and dismiss the complaint. Based on the facts and circumstances presented by this case, dismissal was appropriate under Civ.R. 3(A), requiring that service be perfected within one year of the complaint's filing for the action to commence, and Civ.R. 4(E), mandating dismissal when service is not made upon a defendant within six months after the complaint's filing and good cause for noncompliance cannot be shown. The matter is remanded with instructions for the municipal court to vacate the judgments granted against the defendant and dismiss the plaintiff's money-damages claim."}]}