{"count":381352,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz01Mi44ODc3MDcmcz05NDI1OTQxJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMTAtMDImcD0y&q=PROPERTY+RIGHTS+AND+TRANSACTIONS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7852674/davis-v-property-owners-assn-of-moodus-lake-shores-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Davis v. Property Owners Assn. of Moodus Lake Shores, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["214 Conn. App. 165"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7852674,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-08-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC44707","docket_id":64858698,"judge":"Prescott; Cradle; Clark","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:50.460233Z","date_created":"2022-08-01T12:02:13.928603Z","score":{"bm25":104.46033}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1545734,1924962,2074275,2322013,2322730,2326551,2327339,2556145,4296617,4325371,4702792,7863502],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP214/214AP305.pdf","id":7796540,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/08/02/davis_v._property_owners_assn._of_moodus_lake_shores_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T06:41:48.570534Z","date_created":"2022-08-01T12:02:13.951377Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5e992643b52c7cdd7a61c2e0da267239362ce8a6","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action for, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the defendant improperly prevented the plaintiffs from accessing their driveway in violation of the defendant's restrictive covenants and deeded property rights, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex, where the court, Frech- ette, J., granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Affirmed. Scott W. Jezek, with whom was Deborah L. Barbi, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Troy Bataille, with whom was Sam Westbrook, for the appellee (defendant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7796540],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff homeowners sought, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the defendant, a property owners association, violated the defendant's gov- erning documents and restrictive covenants by improperly preventing the plaintiffs from accessing their driveway. The plaintiffs, whose real property abutted a portion of the association's property, claimed that the only means of access from their property to a certain public road was via a driveway that was located over a portion of the defendant's property and that the defendants had improperly barricaded the drive- way by erecting a fence along the common boundary between the two properties. The plaintiffs had previously brought an action in the trial court to determine whether the plaintiffs had an easement by implication over the defendant's property. The trial court determined that the plain- tiffs had failed to establish an interest in the defendant's property so as to grant an easement and rendered judgment for the defendant, which this court affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiffs brought the present action, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Held that the trial court did not err in concluding that the plaintiffs' claims in the present action were barred by the doctrine of res judicata: the claims asserted in both actions arose out of the same series of connected transactions, as both actions concerned the same parties, the same property, the ability of the plaintiffs to access the road from their residence, and the defendant's legal capacity to construct a barrier between the two properties, and both actions sought similar remedies; moreover, although the plaintiffs argued that their present claims were separate and distinct from the claims raised in the first action, they failed to demonstrate why their present claims could not have been brought in the first action and, therefore, the plaintiffs had an adequate opportunity to litigate the claims of alleged breach of governing documents and deeded rights at the time of the first action and their present claims were merely additional legal theories arising from the same transaction or nucleus of operative facts; furthermore, the combined facts of both actions constituted a single transaction that could have formed a convenient unit for the trial court in the first action, and their treatment as a unit would not have been unexpected by the parties. Argued April 11 2022—officially released August 2, 2022"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4910125/citizens-alliance-for-property-rights-legal-fund-v-san-juan-county/","attorney":"Dennis D. Reynolds (of Dennis D. Reynolds Law Office)-, and Michele Lynn Earl-Hubbard (of Allied Law Group LLC), for petitioner., Randall K. Gaylord, Prosecuting Attorney, and Amy Vira, Deputy, for respondents., Katherine George on behalf of Allied Daily Newspapers and Washington Coalition for Open Government, amici curiae., Nicholas Power on behalf of Island Guardian, amicus curiae., Steven L. Gross and Daniel B. Heid on behalf of Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys, amicus curiae., Julie S. Nichols on behalf of Building Industry Association of Washington, amicus curiae., Brian T. Hodges and Ethan Blevins on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation, amicus curiae., Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, and Alan D. Copsey, Assistant, on behalf of the State of Washington, amicus curiae.","caseName":"Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County","caseNameFull":"Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County","citation":["184 Wash. 2d 428","359 P.3d 753"],"citeCount":57,"cluster_id":4910125,"court":"Washington Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Wash.","court_id":"wash","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-10-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 90500-2","docket_id":60129439,"judge":"Fairhurst, González, Johnson, Madsen, McCloud, Owens, Stephens, Wiggins","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:56:28.226415Z","date_created":"2021-08-12T00:44:18.434498Z","score":{"bm25":73.01676}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4715835,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:18:20.635965Z","date_created":"2021-08-12T00:44:18.457885Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nWiggins, J.\n¶1 — In this case, the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund (CAPR) seeks to invalidate several ordinances passed by the governing council of San Juan County (County), alleging violations of Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act of 1971 (OPMA), chapter 42.30 RCW. Specifically, CAPR asserts that four ordinances passed as part of a state-mandated update of the County’s critical area ordinances (CAO) should b","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4715835,4715836],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8723852/trustco-bank-v-automated-transactions-llc/","attorney":"Thomas C. Grimm, Esquire, Stephen Kraftschik, Esquire of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE. Counsel for Plaintiff. Of Counsel: John T. Gabrielides, Esquire, and Rodney A. Daniel, Esquire of Brinks Hofer Gilson' & Lione. ■, Kelly E. Farnan, Esquire, and Jaclyn C. Levy, Esquire of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE. Counsel for Defendant. Of Counsel: Albert L. Jacob's, Jr. Esquire, Gerard F. Diebner, Esquire, and, John Murray, Esquire, of Tarinenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP.","caseName":"Trustco Bank v. Automated Transactions LLC","caseNameFull":"TRUSTCO BANK v. AUTOMATED TRANSACTIONS LLC","citation":["933 F. Supp. 2d 668","2013 WL 1225978","2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42875"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":8723852,"court":"District Court, D. Delaware","court_citation_string":"D. Del.","court_id":"ded","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-03-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. No. 12-613-SLR","docket_id":65989775,"judge":"Robinson","lexisCite":"2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42875","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:09:46.584483Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T06:31:52.422685Z","score":{"bm25":70.347404}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8707048,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:27:45.720205Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T06:31:52.428378Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMEMORANDUM OPINION\nSUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.\nI. INTRODUCTION\nOn May 17, 2012, plaintiff Trasteo Bank (“Trasteo”) filed this action against defendant Automated Transactions, LLC (“ATL”) seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity of ATL’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,945,457 (“the '457 patent”); 7,571,850; 7,591,420; 7,575,158; 7,600,677; 7,699,220; 7,597,248; 7,597,251; 7,","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8707048],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1439037/kertesz-v-net-transactions-ltd/","attorney":"Joel Benjamin Rothman, Misha J. Kerr, Seiden, Alder, Matthewman & Bloch, P.A., Boca Raton, FL, William Donald Matthew-man, Coral Springs, FL, for Plaintiff., Richard Charles Wolfe, Wolfe & Gold-stein, Miami, FL, Jessica Pena-Sackett, Tucson, AZ, M. Benjamin Murphey, Andrew Y. Winston, Lawlor Winston & Justice, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants.","caseName":"Kertesz v. Net Transactions, Ltd.","caseNameFull":"Heather KERTESZ, Plaintiff, v. NET TRANSACTIONS, LTD., a Gibraltar Limited Liability Company, D/B/A collegewildparties.com; Ventura Content, AVV, an Aruban Corporation, TB Advertising Services, AVV, an Aruban Corporation, Westlake Holdings, AVV, an Aruban Corporation, Edward James Enterprises, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and James Witucki, an Individual, Defendants","citation":["635 F. Supp. 2d 1339","2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54448","2009 WL 1810757"],"citeCount":39,"cluster_id":1439037,"court":"District Court, S.D. Florida","court_citation_string":"S.D. Fla.","court_id":"flsd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-06-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case 08-80730-CIV","docket_id":918252,"judge":"Kenneth A. Marra","lexisCite":"2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54448","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T03:53:30.546409Z","date_created":"2015-07-30T22:06:36.334438Z","score":{"bm25":67.54559}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2044,"cites":[70761,71271,74708,78169,104200,110170,111159,111188,145730,550174,1103024,1126404,1135840,1372065,1589010,1654192,1665797,1691606,1706824,1707087,1711504,1721895,1728831,1740577,1759238,1800098,1809415,1832340,1835241,1836996,1837043,1839906,2332066],"download_url":null,"id":1439037,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T08:26:15.399871Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:10:07.128400Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b3334f432d128b782f5c428244cdf1d3174e07b2","snippet":"\n635 F.Supp.2d 1339 (2009)\nHeather KERTESZ, Plaintiff,\nv.\nNET TRANSACTIONS, LTD., a Gibraltar limited liability company, d/b/a collegewildparties.com; Ventura Content, AVV, an Aruban corporation, TB Advertising Services, AVV, an Aruban corporation, Westlake Holdings, AVV, an Aruban corporation, Edward James Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, and James Witucki, an individual, Defendants.\nCase No. 08-80730-CIV.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1439037],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10331308/civil-rights-dept-v-cathys-creations/","attorney":"","caseName":"Civil Rights Dept. v. Cathy's Creations","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10331308,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-02-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"F085800","docket_id":69631601,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-02-12T00:03:06.169086Z","date_created":"2025-02-12T00:03:06.111046Z","score":{"bm25":64.97982}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112404,117960,145672,198846,450626,770328,801706,821508,932061,1192986,1268213,2132680,2142507,2152107,2248331,2254778,2259944,2277563,2298177,2580641,2809763,2812209,3162050,4107824,4223628,4273084,4424757,4432725,4676265,4696349,5451350,5451477,5452504,6107222,6225139,6325711,8413622,8986098,9406263,9418713,9419378,9420754,9422907,9423150,9423717,9423907,9424268,9425807,9425823,9426752,9427142,9429715,9429745,9430342,9431768,9431796,9432717,9432833,9433029,9433701,9433926,9434509,9435961,9438329,9515913,9549947,9553064,9558108,9615496,9785909,9786018,9786052,9789507,9795330,9796443,9797756,9821812,9839623,9847455,10453796,10467273,10486642],"download_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F085800.PDF","id":10797896,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/02/11/civil_rights_dept._v._cathys_creations.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:40:51.211781Z","date_created":"2025-02-12T00:03:06.113549Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e85693ac3439297d61f90b04a053a819a8607354","snippet":"Filed 2/11/25\n\n\n\n\n                             CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\n                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT,\n                                                                 F085800\n          Plaintiff and Appellant,\n                                                     (Super. Ct. No. BCV-18-102633)\n                  v.\n\n CATHY'S CREATIONS, INC., et al.,                           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10797896],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10350679/civil-rights-dept-v-cathys-creations/","attorney":"","caseName":"Civil Rights Dept. v. Cathy's Creations","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10350679,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"F085800M","docket_id":69708935,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-05T23:03:14.780052Z","date_created":"2025-03-05T23:03:14.715561Z","score":{"bm25":62.959293}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112404,117960,145672,198846,450626,770328,801706,821508,932061,1192986,1268213,2132680,2142507,2152107,2248331,2254778,2259944,2277563,2298177,2580641,2809763,2812209,3162050,4107824,4223628,4273084,4424757,4432725,4676265,4696349,5451350,5451477,5452504,6107222,6225139,6325711,8413622,8986098,9406263,9418713,9419378,9420754,9422907,9423150,9423717,9423907,9424268,9425807,9425823,9426752,9427142,9429715,9429745,9430342,9431768,9431796,9432717,9432833,9433029,9433701,9433926,9434509,9435961,9438329,9515913,9549947,9553064,9558108,9615496,9785909,9786018,9786052,9789507,9795330,9796443,9797756,9821812,9839623,9847455,10453796,10467273,10486642],"download_url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F085800M.PDF","id":10817267,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/05/civil_rights_dept._v._cathys_creations.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T23:08:44.261531Z","date_created":"2025-03-05T23:03:14.718111Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"76148eebf60ddbb955c1f23851b637cd3de3a39a","snippet":"Filed 3/5/25 (unmodified opn. attached)\n\n\n\n\n                                 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION\n\n           IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                  FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n\n\n CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT,\n                                                                    F085800\n          Plaintiff and Appellant,\n                                                     (Kern Super. Ct. No. BCV-18-102633)\n                  v.\n                         ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10817267],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8730732/in-re-bank-of-new-york-mellon-corp-forex-transactions-litigation/","attorney":"Steven N. Williams, Adam J. Zapala, Eric J. Buescher, Gene W. Kim, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Carmen A. Trutanieh, Alan L. Manning, Marie McTeague, Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney, for Plaintiffs Los Angeles Department of Waterand Power Retirement Plan and Los Angeles County Employee Retirement Association., Richard H. Heimann, Lexi J. Hazam, Robert L. Lieff, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Philip R. Michael, Michael Law Group, Michael P. Thornton, Michael A. Lesser, Evan R. Hoffman, Thornton & Naumes LLP, for Plaintiff/Relator., Reid M. Figel, Rebecca A. Beynon, David L. Schwarz, Derek T. Ho, Gregory G. Rapawy, Joshua D. Branson, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., for Defendants.","caseName":"In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Forex Transactions Litigation","caseNameFull":"In re BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP. FOREX TRANSACTIONS LITIGATION","citation":["991 F. Supp. 2d 479","2014 WL 1725752"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":8730732,"court":"District Court, S.D. New York","court_citation_string":"S.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nysd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-05-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 12 MD 2335(LAK)","docket_id":65996656,"judge":"Kaplan","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:13:03.619921Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T07:31:13.558426Z","score":{"bm25":60.167744}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103757,168236,180323,182561,186373,264260,427288,622756,699194,706922,751675,762065,764072,766695,805934,806321,822875,1025715,1034073,1154737,1301891,1801796,2113817,2164316,2242259,2244400,2255788,2257435,2276978,2278475,2290646,2567359,2625862,5452218,5662673,5666466,5666848,6928019,7007882,8669864,8697439,8703521,8705750,8708080,8713931,8989008,9685293],"download_url":null,"id":8713934,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T03:59:45.946546Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T07:31:13.569784Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMEMORANDUM OPINION\nLEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.\nThis is yet the next chapter in the litigation regarding the standing instruction foreign exchange (“FX”) trading service provided by Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”)1 to its custodial customers. In Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (“SEPTA”),2","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8713934],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10281425/yamhill-county-v-real-property/","attorney":"","caseName":"Yamhill County v. Real Property","caseNameFull":"","citation":["373 Or. 82"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10281425,"court":"Oregon Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Or.","court_id":"or","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-11-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S070217","docket_id":69400390,"judge":"Flynn","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-21T17:13:50.088512Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T17:13:50.016801Z","score":{"bm25":59.900772}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[89720,101672,101673,108643,111103,835187,836008,2605728,2764895,3838950,9422536,9428052,9433177,9433258,9433350,9433683,9433986,9503188,9503331,9535109,9632733,9787347,9929028,10602254,10627408,10750863],"download_url":"https://ojd.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/12963/download","id":10748013,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/21/yamhill_county_v._real_property.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T13:22:07.877154Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T17:13:50.033530Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bc65fa50dc0e4174078316b848f65834e3a4ad2f","snippet":"82                      November 21, 2024                       No. 41\n\n            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE\n                  STATE OF OREGON\n\n                       YAMHILL COUNTY,\n          a political subdivision of the State of Oregon\n                 and forfeiting agency, on behalf\n      of the Yamhill County Interagency Narcotics Team\n                     (YCINT) seizing agency,\n                       Petitioner on Review,\n                                 v.\n                        RE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10748013],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10284275/yamhill-county-v-real-property/","attorney":"","caseName":"Yamhill County v. Real Property","caseNameFull":"","citation":["373 Or. 82"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10284275,"court":"Oregon Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Or.","court_id":"or","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-11-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S070217","docket_id":69400390,"judge":"Flynn","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-26T22:12:09.976876Z","date_created":"2024-11-26T22:12:09.892898Z","score":{"bm25":59.72428}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[89720,101672,101673,108643,111103,835187,836008,2605728,2764895,3838950,9422536,9428052,9433177,9433258,9433350,9433683,9433986,9503188,9503331,9535109,9632733,9787347,9929028,10602254,10627408,10748013],"download_url":"https://ojd.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/12964/download","id":10750863,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/21/yamhill_county_v._real_property_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T00:20:53.587103Z","date_created":"2024-11-26T22:12:09.926540Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0b6f443e598ddfbcf5cdccf682038c3308b8b6ea","snippet":"82                      November 21, 2024                       No. 41\n\n            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE\n                  STATE OF OREGON\n\n                       YAMHILL COUNTY,\n          a political subdivision of the State of Oregon\n                 and forfeiting agency, on behalf\n      of the Yamhill County Interagency Narcotics Team\n                     (YCINT) seizing agency,\n                       Petitioner on Review,\n                                 v.\n                        RE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10750863],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10267065/giallela-v-united-property-management-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Giallela v. United Property Management, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10267065,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-11-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2023-1978","docket_id":69355270,"judge":"Judge Randolph D. Moss","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-08T16:01:32.919432Z","date_created":"2024-11-08T16:01:32.835961Z","score":{"bm25":59.436096}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2334,"cites":[111117,145754,219732,421081,535573,2305288,2472172,2501464,2654532,2660435,2660930,2663451,2810851,3177019,4117942,4671322,6934780,9422389],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cv1978-23","id":10733655,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/08/giallela_v._united_property_management_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T10:59:41.768911Z","date_created":"2024-11-08T16:01:32.866067Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"74edc72224de70c3cbaf5db997e7b96af0b3c9d4","snippet":"                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n REBECCA GIALLELLA,\n\n                Plaintiff,\n\n        v.\n                                                          Civil Action No. 23-1978 (RDM)\n UNITED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,\n INC., et al.,\n\n                Defendants.\n\n\n                             MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\n\n       This matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant United\n\nProper","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10733655],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10673709/pickering-r-v-associated-realty-property/","attorney":"","caseName":"Pickering, R. v. Associated Realty Property","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Pa. Super. 208"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10673709,"court":"Superior Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa. Super. Ct.","court_id":"pasuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-09-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2446 EDA 2024","docket_id":71380661,"judge":"Kunselman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-18T17:12:35.252166Z","date_created":"2025-09-18T17:12:34.281962Z","score":{"bm25":58.976738}},"neutralCite":"2025 Pa. Super. 208","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[4965251,9706408],"download_url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A16030-25o - 106514246327381797.pdf","id":11140296,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/09/18/pickering_r._v._associated_realty_property.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:22:27.380188Z","date_created":"2025-09-18T17:12:34.295337Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b03dafd2e2efa279649abbfa10832d6a3163b641","snippet":"J-A16030-25\n\n                               2025 PA Super 208\n\n\n RICHARD E. PICKERING, AS                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF\n ADMINISTRATOR AD                        :        PENNSYLVANIA\n PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF           :\n JUSTINE M. GROSS                        :\n                                         :\n                   Appellant             :\n                                         :\n              v.                         :\n                                         :\n A","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11140296],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4872455/cigna-v-illinois-human-rights-commn/","attorney":"","caseName":"Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 IL App (1st) 190620"],"citeCount":16,"cluster_id":4872455,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-04-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1-19-06201-19-1010","docket_id":59810744,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:46:58.059835Z","date_created":"2021-04-09T21:03:49.969229Z","score":{"bm25":57.543163}},"neutralCite":"2020 IL App (1st) 190620","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2027549,2060270,2096434,2098793,2197430,2216612,2233472,2647715,2765062],"download_url":"http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2020/1stDistrict/1190620.pdf","id":4676234,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/04/09/cigna_v._illinois_human_rights_commn.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-28T21:28:05.327410Z","date_created":"2021-04-09T21:03:49.972059Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a4b06a3b038b8d294019d3c277f5c978a4b9ea92","snippet":"                                                                             Digitally signed\n                                                                             by Reporter of\n                                                                             Decisions\n                                                                             Reason: I attest to\n                           Illinois Official Reports                         the accuracy and\n                                    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4676234],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7323632/hydrogen-master-rights-ltd-v-weston/","attorney":"Arthur G. Connolly, III, Esquire and Mary I. Akhimien, Esquire of Connolly Gallagher, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiffs. Of Counsel: David T. Movius, Esquire of McDonald Hopkins LLC, Cleveland, Ohio., George Pazuniak, Esquire of O’Kelly <& Ernst, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendants Dean Weston, Engineering Interests, LLC, Paul David Manos, Tracy Coats, and The Client is Everything, Ltd.","caseName":"Hydrogen Master Rights, Ltd. v. Weston","caseNameFull":"HYDROGEN MASTER RIGHTS, LTD., Carl Le Souef and Pravansu Mohanty, Ph.D. v. Dean WESTON, Engineering Interests, LLC, Paul David Manos, Significan Global Energy Intellectual Property Trust, Significan Australia Energy Intellectual Property Trust, Tracy Coats, and The Client is Everything, Ltd.","citation":["228 F. Supp. 3d 320","2017 WL 78582","2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2694"],"citeCount":25,"cluster_id":7323632,"court":"District Court, D. Delaware","court_citation_string":"D. Del.","court_id":"ded","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-01-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. No. 16-474-RGA","docket_id":64312115,"judge":"Andrews","lexisCite":"2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2694","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:37:36.121097Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:59:32.652808Z","score":{"bm25":57.462597}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7241543,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:34:05.987269Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:59:32.661732Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMEMORANDUM OPINION\nANDREWS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:\nPer the amended complaint (D.I. 22), defendant Tracy Coats is a former partner of plaintiffs Carl Le Souef and Dr. Pravan-su Mohanty.1 (D.I. 22 at ¶¶ 28, 49). While acting as partners, they used plaintiff Hydrogen Master Rights, Ltd. (“HMR”) as an acquisition vehicle to purchase certain ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7241543],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6445322/kelly-v-timber-lakes-property/","attorney":"","caseName":"Kelly v. Timber Lakes Property","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2022 UT App 23"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":6445322,"court":"Court of Appeals of Utah","court_citation_string":"Utah Ct. App.","court_id":"utahctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-02-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20191079-CA","docket_id":63114112,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:41:24.717714Z","date_created":"2022-02-24T22:15:32.800817Z","score":{"bm25":55.893494}},"neutralCite":"2022 UT App 23","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[516038,1057305,1129183,1133449,1134778,1138892,1165291,1186022,1190434,1209444,1234162,1266188,1277482,1304119,1374808,1426873,2507413,2510388,2515400,2581130,2600191,2600199,2622669,2628309,2629390,2639232,2639554,3185078,3985303,3985493,3987227,3987674,3988211,4115494,4158342,4220256,4223438,4238131,4356940,4395477,4419703,4690610,5136756,5136777,5136789,5137133,5137168,5137183,5138380,5138469,5138730,5138733,5138803,5138883,5138930,5139058,5139075,5139125,5156532,5157617,5177349,6318171,9422469,9531682,9534652,9550173,9551660,9553203,9560169,9565098,9566880,9796686,9804292,9854681],"download_url":"https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/Kelly%20v.%20Timber%20Lakes%20Property-20220217-20191079-23.pdf","id":6317433,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/02/17/kelly_v._timber_lakes_property.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T17:51:15.887642Z","date_created":"2022-02-24T22:15:32.803663Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"aa9808a2c4a7ae698ca93d061c5fb19eee30e03f","snippet":"                          2022 UT App 23\n\n\n\n               THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                        NICK KELLY,\n                Appellant and Cross-appellee,\n                             v.\n         TIMBER LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,\n                Appellee and Cross-appellant,\n                               AND\n               HOLLYVALE RENTAL HOLDINGS LLC,\n                          Appellee.\n\n                             Opinion\n                        No. 20191079-CA\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6317433],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9513591/vincent-stormes-v-ff-property-holdings-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Vincent Stormes v. FF Property Holdings, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9513591,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-05-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2023-01430-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":68837172,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:34:45.105128Z","date_created":"2024-06-07T16:12:07.254182Z","score":{"bm25":55.85916}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Vincent%20Stormes%20v.%20FF%20Property%20Holdings%20LLC.%20%28unsigned%29.pdf","id":9980204,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/05/30/vincent_stormes_v._ff_property_holdings_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:33:49.958163Z","date_created":"2024-06-07T16:12:07.255984Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"27862d14285e9a2c51641410402e4b16ed2df2dc","snippet":"                                                                                            05/30/2024\n                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                           AT KNOXVILLE\n                                   April 9, 2024 Session\n\n          VINCENT STORMES V. FF PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC\n\n                  Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sevier County\n                   No. 23-3-066      James H. Ripley, Chancellor\n                      ___________________________________\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9980204],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This is a breach of contract action involving the sale of real property in which the plaintiff seller alleged that the defendant buyer withdrew from the sale in violation of the terms of the contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. We affirm."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6446060/kelly-v-timber-lakes-property/","attorney":"","caseName":"Kelly v. Timber Lakes Property","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2022 UT App 23"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6446060,"court":"Court of Appeals of Utah","court_citation_string":"Utah Ct. App.","court_id":"utahctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-02-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20191079-CA","docket_id":63121612,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:41:35.836880Z","date_created":"2022-02-28T21:16:14.969193Z","score":{"bm25":55.45909}},"neutralCite":"2022 UT App 23","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[516038,1057305,1129183,1133449,1134778,1138892,1165291,1186022,1190434,1209444,1234162,1266188,1277482,1304119,1374808,1426873,2507413,2510388,2515400,2581130,2600191,2600199,2622669,2628309,2629390,2639232,2639554,3185078,3985303,3985493,3987227,3987674,3988211,4115494,4158342,4220256,4223438,4238131,4356940,4395477,4419703,4690610,5136756,5136777,5136789,5137133,5137168,5137183,5138380,5138469,5138730,5138733,5138803,5138883,5138930,5139058,5139075,5139125,5156532,5157617,5177349,6317433,9422469,9531682,9534652,9550173,9551660,9553203,9560169,9565098,9566880,9796686,9804292,9854681],"download_url":"https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/Kelly%20v.%20Timber%20Lakes%20Property20220217_20191079_23.pdf","id":6318171,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/02/17/kelly_v._timber_lakes_property_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T17:58:08.237259Z","date_created":"2022-02-28T21:16:14.972093Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f1cfac22facfb3d097caf2b519075a628c9d1679","snippet":"                          2022 UT App 23\n\n\n\n               THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                        NICK KELLY,\n                Appellant and Cross-appellee,\n                             v.\n         TIMBER LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,\n                Appellee and Cross-appellant,\n                               AND\n               HOLLYVALE RENTAL HOLDINGS LLC,\n                          Appellee.\n\n                             Opinion\n                        No. 20191079-CA\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6318171],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4487788/theresa-seeberger-v-davenport-civil-rights-commission/","attorney":"Latrice L. Lacey, Davenport, for appellant Davenport Civil Rights Commission., Dorothy A. O'Brien of O'Brien and Marquard, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant Michelle Schreurs., Randall D. Armentrout and Katie L. Graham of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.","caseName":"Theresa Seeberger v. Davenport Civil Rights Commission","caseNameFull":"Theresa SEEBERGER, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. DAVENPORT CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and Michelle Schreurs, Intervenor-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.","citation":["918 N.W.2d 502"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4487788,"court":"Court of Appeals of Iowa","court_citation_string":"Iowa Ct. App.","court_id":"iowactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-04-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"16-1534","docket_id":6366342,"judge":"Potterfield, Mullins, Bower","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:58:54.306215Z","date_created":"2018-04-18T15:08:45.327093Z","score":{"bm25":54.77115}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103870,109871,110312,112141,118303,903975,1584163,1800553,2047199,2221830],"download_url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/1252/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion","id":4265041,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/04/18/theresa_seeberger_v._davenport_civil_rights_commission.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:52:10.859085Z","date_created":"2018-04-18T15:08:45.333241Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f23c01ecc495858a6ee26c4e7774e8a46f6f1503","snippet":"\n\n\n  MULLINS, Judge.\n \n\n  The Davenport Civil Rights Commission (Commission) and Michelle Schreurs appeal a district court ruling on Theresa Seeberger's petition for judicial review following an agency determination of Schreurs's housing-discrimination complaint. The Commission contends the district court erred in concluding Schreurs's complaint was not filed under the federal Fair Housing Act (","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4265041],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5793695/hilliker-corporation-v-watson-property-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Hilliker Corporation v. Watson Property, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5793695,"court":"Missouri Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Mo. Ct. App.","court_id":"moctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-01-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ED109549","docket_id":62148858,"judge":"Thomas C. Clark, II, J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T06:46:24.914858Z","date_created":"2022-01-11T15:06:24.295710Z","score":{"bm25":54.768284}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183354","id":5648578,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"bin/2022/01/11/hilliker_corporation_v._watson_property_llc.bin","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T02:52:44.697125Z","date_created":"2022-01-11T15:06:24.310337Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"65d092b2438e439910aeab76606aed4a7dc13194","snippet":"               In the Missouri Court of Appeals\n                       Eastern District\n                                         DIVISION TWO\nHILLIKER CORPORATION,                              )   No. ED109549\n                                                   )\n       Appellant,                                  )   Appeal from the Circuit Court\n                                                   )   of St. Louis County\n       vs.                                         )   Cause No. 19SL-CC05171","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5648578],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10136762/hwang-v-pathway-lagrange-property-owner-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Hwang v. Pathway LaGrange Property Owner, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 IL App (1st) 240534"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":10136762,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1-24-0534","docket_id":69250087,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-10-11T17:03:49.571295Z","date_created":"2024-10-11T16:05:03.527343Z","score":{"bm25":54.022697}},"neutralCite":"2024 IL App (1st) 240534","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1995120,2003120,2008036,2024911,2059016,2066128,2159736,2176239,2232164,2717223,4186840,4661390,4668487,6344866,8182761,9380564,9521833,9704246,9720869,9729505,9742833,9784015,9788380,10465476],"download_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/d63ab1aa-60e2-4d94-b035-abbf428fa5ff/file","id":10603363,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/11/hwang_v._pathway_lagrange_property_owner_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T02:46:19.519483Z","date_created":"2024-10-11T16:05:03.537717Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"74b8323c3e8a31a2103178810e6a1b68581c7945","snippet":"                                    2024 IL App (1st) 240534\n\n                                                                             SIXTH DIVISION\n                                                                             October 11, 2024\n\n                                          No. 1-24-0534\n\n\n\n                                        IN THE\n                              APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS\n                                    FIRST DISTRICT\n\n\n JOAN HWANG,                      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10603363],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9425941/r-donahue-peebles-v-grassmasters-property-management-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"R. DONAHUE PEEBLES v. GRASSMASTERS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9425941,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-09-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2022-0918","docket_id":67790058,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:13:13.069156Z","date_created":"2023-09-13T15:06:00.921218Z","score":{"bm25":52.887707}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1570156,1694801,1728553,4875375,7235022],"download_url":"https://www.3dca.flcourts.org/pre_opinion_content_download/879306","id":9839566,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/09/13/r._donahue_peebles_v._grassmasters_property_management_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:03:38.707059Z","date_created":"2023-09-13T15:06:00.922178Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7329138e65f556c9e0e4749cd199dc0b4609e9ba","snippet":"       Third District Court of Appeal\n                                State of Florida\n\n                      Opinion filed September 13, 2023.\n        Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.\n\n\n\n                               No. 3D22-918\n                       Lower Tribunal No. 20-7595 CC\n\n\n\n                      R. Donahue Peebles, et al.,\n                                  Appellants,\n\n                                      vs.\n\n            GrassMasters Property Manag","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9839566],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}