{"count":66324,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yNy4xMTQ3NyZzPTEwNjQ2MjQ2JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDktMjkmcD0y&q=RIGHT+OF+APPROPRIATION+FOR+BENEFICIAL+USES&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8069958/in-re-the-beneficial-water-use-permit-nos-66459-76l-ciotti-64988-g76l/","attorney":"For Appellant: Daniel F. Decker (argued), and John B. Carter, Tribal Legal Department, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo; James H. Goetz (argued), Goetz, Madden & Dunn, Bozeman., For Respondent: Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Harley R. Harris (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Helena; Tim D. Hall (argued) and Donald D. MacIntyre, Special Assistant Attorneys General, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helena.","caseName":"In re the Beneficial Water Use Permit Nos. 66459-76L, Ciotti 64988-g76L, Starner","caseNameFull":"IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR BENEFICIAL WATER USE PERMIT Nos. 66459-76L, Ciotti 64988-g76L, Starner and APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF APPROPRIATION WATER RIGHT No. G15152-S76l, Pope","citation":["278 Mont. 50","53 State Rptr. 777","923 P.2d 1073","1996 Mont. LEXIS 168"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8069958,"court":"Montana Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Mont.","court_id":"mont","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1996-08-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 95-080","docket_id":65165545,"judge":"Erdmann, Gray, Hunt, Leaphart, Nelson, Trieweiler, Turnage","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T16:58:13.785159Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T02:55:11.830409Z","score":{"bm25":44.206657}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8028463,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T00:58:22.514708Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T02:55:11.847861Z"},"ordering_key":4,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nCHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE,\ndissenting.\nI concur in the majority’s starting premise that the Tribes possess a reserved water right which is unique and which has not yet been quantified. However, I must dissent from the majority’s conclusion that, under Montana statutes, this right of the Tribes requires a shutdown of the water permitting process in Montana.\nSection 85-2-217, MCA, provides that adjudic","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8028460,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T15:05:17.823097Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T02:55:11.840208Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJUSTICE TRIEWEILER\ndelivered the Opinion of the Court.\nOn April 30,1985, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation (Tribes) filed an objection with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to an application by Frank Pope, a non-Indian landowner on the reservation, for an authorization to change his point of diversion and place of use of a portion of his on-r","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8028461,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T15:05:17.829788Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T02:55:11.843153Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJUSTICE NELSON\nspecially concurs.\nI concur with the analysis and result of our decision and have, accordingly, signed the opinion. In doing so, I, nevertheless, question the necessity for our taking this approach, given the fact that in 1987, DNRC unsuccessfully litigated the exact issues that are now before us in the same District Court. Under such circumstances, the doctrine of collateral estoppel should, and","type":"concurrence-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8028462,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T00:58:22.505476Z","date_created":"2022-09-09T02:55:11.845670Z"},"ordering_key":3,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJUSTICE LEAPHART,\nspecially concurring.\nI concur in the result reached by the Court. However, while the Court has concluded that the applicants have failed to satisfy the Montana Water Use Act, specifically, § 85-2-311, MCA, I would hold that under the principles of tribal sovereignty, the state has no *65jurisdiction to issue water permits on the Flath","type":"concurrence-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8028460,8028461,8028462,8028463],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10366621/hoff-v-city-of-burlington/","attorney":"","caseName":"Hoff v. City of Burlington","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 ND 62"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10366621,"court":"North Dakota Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.D.","court_id":"nd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 20240081","docket_id":69809717,"judge":"Bahr, Douglas Alan","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-28T16:12:45.358864Z","date_created":"2025-03-28T16:12:44.099487Z","score":{"bm25":42.16799}},"neutralCite":"2025 ND 62","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[896836,897516,897658,897722,897968,897997,898500,898665,898690,898755,898791,1282032,1472744,1580620,1601467,1603424,1844610,1855107,1924766,1955920,1966588,1992728,2117625,2144308,2228798,2684716,3681095,4028584,4106149,4185718,4369996,4373216,4463876,4532501,4558858,4635693,4661325,8246426,8246714,8247476,8255530,8482954,9323782,9376667,9556493,9906256,9913635,9948489,9957406,9957407,10494185,10504829,10556548,10591812],"download_url":"https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/181506","id":10833209,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/28/hoff_v._city_of_burlington_2025_nd_62.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:50:32.180630Z","date_created":"2025-03-28T16:12:44.107445Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a6ffbb6dab1dae3aab15b841846fe031758a9bb3","snippet":"                      IN THE SUPREME COURT\n                      STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA\n\n                                 2025 ND 62\n\nCasey Hoff,                                             Plaintiff and Appellant\n      v.\nCity of Burlington,                                   Defendant and Appellee\n\n\n\n                                No. 20240081\n\nAppeal from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District,\nthe Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Judge.\n\nAFFIRMED.\n\nOpinion of the Cour","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10833209],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Appeal - Civil - Other","syllabus":"The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the petitioner did not establish a clear legal right to the city's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for his remodeled home that is out of compliance with the city's ordinances. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying declaratory judgment plaintiff constructed an addition to his home in accordance with the city's ordinances when the evidence supports the court's findings the plaintiff did not comply with the city's ordinances. A total regulatory taking occurs when regulations completely deprive an owner of all economically beneficial use of an owner's property. For total regulatory takings, the complete elimination of a property's value is the determinative factor because the total deprivation of beneficial use is, from the landowner's point of view, the equivalent of a physical appropriation. If a \"special relationship\" is established under the four elements provided by statute, a political subdivision may be liable for damages for injuries proximately caused by the negligence or wrongful act or omission of an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2829556/in-re-appropriation-a-7603/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Appropriation A-7603","caseNameFull":"","citation":["291 Neb. 678"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":2829556,"court":"Nebraska Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Neb.","court_id":"neb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-08-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S-14-906","docket_id":2686487,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-08-26T02:02:01.317848Z","date_created":"2015-08-21T14:32:58.911922Z","score":{"bm25":41.42273}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1301884,1589857,1712275,1809962,1836722,1845302,1900671,2093795,2144574,2682639,6655885,6661114,8034666,8037626,8041846],"download_url":"https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/sites/supremecourt.ne.gov/files/sc/opinions/scAug21S-14-906.pdf","id":2829556,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/08/21/in_re_appropriation_a-7603.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T04:17:49.492553Z","date_created":"2015-08-21T14:06:53.032684Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d416a062782ac9cf45ce185bc2f3d6f51c1cd20c","snippet":"                                     - 678 -\n                        Nebraska A dvance Sheets\n                         291 Nebraska R eports\n                        IN RE APPROPRIATION A-7603\n                             Cite as 291 Neb. 678\n\n\n\n\n        In   reA ppropriation A-7603, Water Division 2-A.\n             Broken Bar Nine Living Trust, appellant,\n               v. Nebraska Department of Natural\n                        R esources, appellee.\n                                ___ N.W.2d ___\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2829556],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4772878/beneficial-financial-i-v-jon-windham/","attorney":"","caseName":"Beneficial Financial I v. Jon Windham","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4772878,"court":"Court of Appeals of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"scctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-08-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2017-001954","docket_id":17415624,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-03T15:10:24.006893Z","date_created":"2020-08-05T14:10:50.302994Z","score":{"bm25":39.17961}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1204303,1231861,1252005,1256732,1260511,1266083,1266147,1269598,1283306,1288308,1298024,1302955,1308400,1319124,1328672,1338529,1398252,1402093,1412277,2503243,2506435],"download_url":"http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5753.pdf","id":4553225,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/08/05/beneficial_financial_i_v._jon_windham.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:12:08.959095Z","date_created":"2020-08-05T14:10:50.304925Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"479da758e01f03883f56cd0605ca9b0a7c0fa243","snippet":"        THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n            In The Court of Appeals\n\nBeneficial Financial I, Inc., successor by merger to\nBeneficial Mortgage Co. of South Carolina, Appellant,\n\nv.\n\nJon Windham, a/k/a Jon D. Windham; Frances\nWindham, a/k/a Frances C. Windham; and Jerry Coker,\na/k/a Jerry L. Coker; Carolina Bank a/k/a Carolina Bank\n& Trust Co., The United States of America, by and\nthrough its agency, the Internal Revenue Service; and\nThe Citizens Bank, Defendants,\n\nOf whom Jon Windham a/k/a Jo","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4553225],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"In this foreclosure action, Beneficial Financial I Inc., lender, challenges the grant of summary judgment to Jon Windham, borrower, on his counterclaims. Beneficial argues Windham was not entitled to the award even though Beneficial did not submit evidence in opposition at the hearing because Windham did not meet his burden of proof for any of the causes of action. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6453722/reyes-v-beneficial-state-bank/","attorney":"","caseName":"Reyes v. Beneficial State Bank","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6453722,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-03-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"F080827","docket_id":63178628,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:43:33.948834Z","date_created":"2022-03-22T21:01:46.029314Z","score":{"bm25":38.977917}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1359256,1378785,4410206,5650418],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F080827.PDF","id":6325833,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/03/22/reyes_v._beneficial_state_bank.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T19:24:28.613082Z","date_created":"2022-03-22T21:01:46.031790Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"cea4e288814fc9402480b67b77c6f97e401748db","snippet":"Filed 3/22/22\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 DIGNA REYES et al.,\n                                                                     F080827\n          Plaintiffs and Appellants,\n                                                                (Kern Super. Ct.\n                  v.                                          No. BCV-17-100082)\n\n BENE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6325833],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2323322/beneficial-maine-inc-v-carter/","attorney":"S. James Levis, Jr., Esq., Levis & Ingraham, PA, Saco, ME, for Timothy G. and Kathleen A. Carter., William B. Jordan, Esq., Shapiro & Morley, LLC, South Portland, ME, for Beneficial Maine, Inc.","caseName":"Beneficial Maine Inc. v. Carter","caseNameFull":"BENEFICIAL MAINE INC. v. Timothy G. CARTER Et Al.","citation":["2011 ME 77","25 A.3d 96","2011 Me. LEXIS 77","2011 WL 2649988"],"citeCount":119,"cluster_id":2323322,"court":"Supreme Judicial Court of Maine","court_citation_string":"Me.","court_id":"me","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-07-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Docket: Yor-10-568","docket_id":2193386,"judge":"Saufley, Alexander, Levy, Silver, Mead, Gorman, Jabar","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:38:11.110123Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:33:09.870241Z","score":{"bm25":33.812927}},"neutralCite":"2011 ME 77","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":4640,"cites":[337934,2002049,2008886,2055999,2159654,2553477,2557075,4958019,8030286,9751949],"download_url":null,"id":2323322,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:54:36.753029Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:06:22.099478Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"101448d936ba8043542ef7694de8d9d0debd8902","snippet":"\n25 A.3d 96 (2011)\n2011 ME 77\nBENEFICIAL MAINE INC.\nv.\nTimothy G. CARTER et al.\nDocket: Yor-10-568.\nSupreme Judicial Court of Maine.\nSubmitted on Briefs: April 27, 2011.\nDecided: July 7, 2011.\n*98 S. James Levis, Jr., Esq., Levis & Ingraham, PA, Saco, ME, for Timothy G. and Kathleen A. ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2323322],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4596039/dill-v-yamasaki-ring-llc/","attorney":"\n  Attorneys for Applicants-Appellees: Somach Simmons & Dunn, Sarah A. Klahn, Denver, Colorado\n , \n  Attorneys for Opposer-Appellant: Monson, Cummins & Shohet, LLC, David M. Shohet, Ryan W. Farr, Colorado Springs, Colorado\n , \n  Attorneys for Division Engineer and State Engineer: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Paul L. Benington, First Assistant Attorney General, Ema I. G. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado\n , \n  No appearance on behalf of Opposers-Appellees Tom French and Joan French.\n ","caseName":"Dill v. Yamasaki Ring, LLC","caseNameFull":"Concerning the APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF Donald E. DILL, Cathie G. Dill, Jerry R. Pearce, and Frances M. Pearce in Fremont County. Donald E. Dill, Cathie G. Dill, Jerry R. Pearce, and Frances M. Pearce, Applicants-Appellees v. Yamasaki Ring, LLC, Opposer-Appellant and Kevin Rein, State Engineer and Steve J. Witte, Division Engineer, Water Division 2, Opposers-Appellees. Concerning the Water Rights of Donald E. Dill, Cathie G. Dill, Jerry R. Pearce, and Frances M. Pearce in Fremont County. Donald E. Dill, Cathie G. Dill, Jerry R. Pearce, and Frances M. Pearce, Applicants-Appellees, v. Yamasaki Ring, LLC, Opposer-Appellant and Tom French and Joan French, Opposers-Appellees and Concerning Bill Tyner, Division Engineer, Water Division 2 and Kevin Rein, State Engineer, Defendants-Appellees.","citation":["2019 CO 14","435 P.3d 1067"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":4596039,"court":"Supreme Court of Colorado","court_citation_string":"Colo.","court_id":"colo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-02-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17SA231, 17SA303","docket_id":14591481,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:29:21.957520Z","date_created":"2019-03-04T20:02:23.191575Z","score":{"bm25":32.37963}},"neutralCite":"2019 CO 14","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1145897,1295242,2543527,3312123,4104744,4370785],"download_url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/opinions/2-25-19/17SA231.pdf","id":4373292,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/02/25/dill_v._yamasaki_ring_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:07:31.793331Z","date_created":"2019-03-04T20:02:23.203718Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"77dcb25aa065f92e578507bffd060e22ea03549c","snippet":"\n\n\n  JUSTICE SAMOUR delivered the Opinion of the Court.\n \n\n  ¶1 This appeal from the water court requires us to travel back in time to the last century. Our destination is January 4, 1909. Upon arrival, we find ourselves in the district court of Fremont County, Colorado, where W. S. Horton and A. W. Alexander are embattled in a water rights dispute. Both are represented by counsel. The Honorabl","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4373292],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Supreme Court considered whether a 1909 water decree adjudicates a water right in certain springs. Because the decree failed to set forth required indicia of enforceability—including an appropriation date, a priority number, and quantification information—with respect to the springs, the Court answered the question in the negative. A decree must measure, limit, and define both the nature and extent of a water right. The priority, the location of diversion at the supply's source, and the amount of water for application to a beneficial use are all essential elements of the appropriative water right. Of these, priority is the most important stick in the water rights bundle because priority is a function of appropriation and adjudication indeed, the purpose of adjudication is to fix the priority of a water right. As the water court concluded, the 1909 decree clearly and unambiguously sets forth an unenforceable entitlement to receive and conduct water from the springs. Without indicia of enforceability, and in particular a priority number, the 1909 decree cannot be deemed to adjudicate a water right in the springs that can be enforced and administered. Therefore, the Court affirmed the water court's judgment."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2751071/beneficial-mtge-co-inc-v-dickerson/","attorney":"","caseName":"Beneficial Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Dickerson","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2014 Ohio 5045"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":2751071,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-11-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14AP-282","docket_id":2597407,"judge":"Dorrian","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:24:26.640079Z","date_created":"2014-11-13T19:42:45.239477Z","score":{"bm25":31.687473}},"neutralCite":"2014 Ohio 5045","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8081,"cites":[112128],"download_url":"http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/10/2014/2014-ohio-5045.pdf","id":2751071,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/11/13/beneficial_mtge._co._inc._v._dickerson.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:49:02.106080Z","date_created":"2014-11-13T19:06:02.958130Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"efcf278cb6b92899f0158e8654ba5a8b74527779","snippet":"[Cite as Beneficial Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Dickerson, 2014-Ohio-5045.]\n\n                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nBeneficial Mortgage Company, Inc.,                    :\n\n                 Plaintiff-Appellant/                 :\n                 Cross-Appellee,\n                                                      :                  No. 14AP-282\nv.                                                                    (C.P.C","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2751071],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/78158/christ-v-beneficial-corp/","attorney":"Douglas N. Campbell, Douglas N. Campbell & Associates, P.C., Atlanta, GA, Michael B. Colgan, Glenn, Rasmussen, Fo-garty, P.A., Tampa, FL, Daniel H. Squire, Naracha D. Steimer, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, Bridgette L. Kaiser, Washington, DC, James C. Hucka-by, Jr., Clarence M. Small., Jr., Deborah Alley Smith, Christian & Small LLP, John Winston Scott, Scott, Dukes & Geisler, P.C., Mark J. White, White, Arnold, Andrews & Dowd, P.C., Birmingham, AL, Christopher R. Lipsett, Michael A. Granne, Kathryn C. Arnold, Wilmer Cutler Pickering LLP, Christopher R. Lipsett, New York City, Kevin H. Moriarty, Hale and Dorr, LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellants., R. Timothy Morrison, Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP, Atlanta, GA, C. Neal Pope, Wade H. Tomlin-son, III, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP, Columbus, GA, Lanny S. Hines, Lanny Hines & Associates, Birmingham, AL, Robert Scott, Johnson, Franzen & Salzano, P.C., for plaintiff-appellee.","caseName":"Christ v. Beneficial Corp.","caseNameFull":"Kenneth R. CHRIST, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENEFICIAL CORPORATION, Beneficial Florida, Inc., Beneficial Management Corporation of America, Beneficial Insurance Group, Inc., Wesco Insurance Company, Beneficial Insurance Agency of Nevada, Wilmington Property and Casualty, Defendants-Appellants; Kenneth R. Christ, Jr., on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beneficial Corporation, Beneficial Management Corporation of America, Beneficial Insurance Group, Inc., Beneficial Insurance Agency of Nevada, Wesco Insurance Company, Wilmington Property and Casualty Insurance Company, N/K/A Wesco Insurance Company, Beneficial Florida, Inc., BFC Insurance Agency of Nevada, Defendants-Appellants","citation":["547 F.3d 1292","2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 22421","2008 WL 4716751"],"citeCount":27,"cluster_id":78158,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"11th Cir.","court_id":"ca11","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2008-10-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"06-14828, 07-10246","docket_id":227016,"judge":"Tjoflat, Anderson, Hill","lexisCite":"2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 22421","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T18:05:30.265869Z","date_created":"2015-12-04T20:28:38.470298Z","score":{"bm25":30.691685}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[22201,22206,76154,102770,110154,145799,396175,771316,772396,777883,2620697],"download_url":"http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200614828.pdf","id":78158,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2008/10/28/Kenneth_R._Christ_Jr._v._Beneficial_Corporation.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T13:46:51.123333Z","date_created":"2010-04-27T04:01:55Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c59661dcadf46837cae7c50d4c1d740e433191a7","snippet":"\n547 F.3d 1292 (2008)\nKenneth R. CHRIST, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee,\nv.\nBENEFICIAL CORPORATION, Beneficial Florida, Inc., Beneficial Management Corporation of America, Beneficial Insurance Group, Inc., Wesco Insurance Company, Beneficial Insurance Agency of Nevada, Wilmington Property And Casualty, Defendants-Appellants. *1293 \nKenneth R. Christ, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Pla","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[78158],"source":"LCU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/202049/miles-v-beneficial-massachusetts-inc/","attorney":"Thomas E. Carlotto, with whom Shecht-man Halperin Savage, LLP was on brief, for appellant., Paul Collier, III, with whom Law Offices of Paul Collier, Kimberly Breger, and Legal Services Center of Harvard Law Center, were on brief, for appellee.","caseName":"Miles v. Beneficial Massachusetts, Inc.","caseNameFull":"In Re Jean MILES, Debtor, Jean Miles, Debtor, Appellee, v. Beneficial Massachusetts, Inc., Creditor, Appellant","citation":["436 F.3d 291","2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2901","2006 WL 279342"],"citeCount":12,"cluster_id":202049,"court":"Court of Appeals for the First Circuit","court_citation_string":"1st Cir.","court_id":"ca1","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2006-02-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"05-1892","docket_id":700684,"judge":"Torruella, Coffin, Howard","lexisCite":"2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2901","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T18:58:19.799661Z","date_created":"2014-12-21T11:50:29.179584Z","score":{"bm25":30.23412}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[200404,200951,201347,201708,508991,9795100],"download_url":"http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/05-1892-01A.pdf","id":202049,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2006/02/07/Miles_v._Beneficial.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T15:58:28.110196Z","date_created":"2011-02-07T05:43:33Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"249cef0170f5b14977b77b840023a596194422aa","snippet":"\n\n\n  HOWARD, Circuit Judge.\n \n\n  This bankruptcy appeal arrives before us in a procedural tangle. The case began when Jean Miles, the debtor, filed a petition for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code to forestall a scheduled foreclosure by creditor (and appellant) Beneficial Massachusetts, Inc., which holds a mortgage on her residence. Despite the mortgage, Miles listed Beneficial","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[202049],"source":"CRU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2202100/mccool-v-beneficial-in-re-mccool/","attorney":"Donald R. Harris, Sandusky, OH, for Debtors.","caseName":"McCool v. Beneficial (In Re McCool)","caseNameFull":"In Re Thomas/Connie McCOOL, Debtor(s). Thomas McCool, Et Al., Plaintiff(s) v. Beneficial, Defendant(s)","citation":["446 B.R. 819","2010 WL 6529649"],"citeCount":17,"cluster_id":2202100,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio","court_citation_string":"Bankr. N.D. Ohio","court_id":"ohnb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-04-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-10952","docket_id":770950,"judge":"Richard L. Speer","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T09:43:17.255437Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T12:09:13.349524Z","score":{"bm25":30.122566}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[771228,788536,1536724,1550666,1824745,1868484,1926262,2018441],"download_url":null,"id":2202100,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:11:22.053352Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:35:35.327811Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"86835c69216cc412a79b8c4574aecbaa5a072229","snippet":"\n446 B.R. 819 (2010)\nIn Re Thomas/Connie McCOOL, Debtor(s).\nThomas McCool, et al., Plaintiff(s)\nv.\nBeneficial, Defendant(s).\nNo. 09-3308.\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio.\nApril 27, 2010.\n*822 Donald R. Harris, Sandusky, OH, for Debtors.\n\nDECISION AND ORDER\nRICHARD L. SPEER, Bankruptcy Ju","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2202100],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9396703/matter-of-oceanview-home-for-adults-inc-v-zucker/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v. Zucker","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 NY Slip Op 02365"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9396703,"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":"2023-05-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CV-22-1940","docket_id":67324179,"judge":"Lynch, J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:05:35.541145Z","date_created":"2023-05-04T15:06:57.780791Z","score":{"bm25":28.36874}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":7881,"cites":[688708,721510,795896,1476570,1526015,2400958,2469236,2562735,4690707,5129230,5535805,5537334,5539837,5541252,6220996,7804109,9392224,9430860,9430976,9432233,9433139,9433860,9485130,9817979],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_02365.htm","id":9392179,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/05/04/matter_of_oceanview_home_for_adults_inc._v._zucker.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T16:43:29.552022Z","date_created":"2023-05-04T15:06:57.820526Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e227f065fca2d4d1ee9c08a0f8a3c90f8c037525","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v Zucker (2023 NY Slip Op 02365)\n\n\n\n\n\nMatter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v Zucker\n\n\n2023 NY Slip Op 02365\n\n\nDecided on May 4, 2023\n\n\nAppellate Division, Third Department\n\n\nLynch, J.\n\n\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9392179],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9396748/matter-of-oceanview-home-for-adults-inc-v-zucker/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v. Zucker","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 NY Slip Op 02365"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9396748,"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":"2023-05-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CV-22-1940","docket_id":67324179,"judge":"Lynch, J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:05:36.860954Z","date_created":"2023-05-04T16:08:16.914891Z","score":{"bm25":28.210768}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":7881,"cites":[688708,721510,795896,1476570,1526015,2400958,2469236,2562735,4690707,5129230,5535805,5537334,5539837,5541252,6220996,7804109,9392179,9430860,9430976,9432233,9433139,9433860,9485130,9817979],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_02365.htm","id":9392224,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/05/04/matter_of_oceanview_home_for_adults_inc._v._zucker_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T16:52:44.878618Z","date_created":"2023-05-04T16:08:16.957029Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c793197e04e415398dc733d78703a75d0cc64281","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v Zucker (2023 NY Slip Op 02365)\n\n\n\n\n\nMatter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v Zucker\n\n\n2023 NY Slip Op 02365\n\n\nDecided on May 4, 2023\n\n\nAppellate Division, Third Department\n\n\nLynch, J.\n\n\n\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9392224],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5313392/in-the-matter-of-the-necessity-for-the-hospitalization-of-mark-v-in-the/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of: Mark V., In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of: Mark V.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["501 P.3d 228"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":5313392,"court":"Alaska Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Alaska","court_id":"alaska","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-12-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S17721, S17811","docket_id":61653240,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-17T21:29:35.026686Z","date_created":"2021-12-31T01:02:07.205761Z","score":{"bm25":27.895617}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118315],"download_url":"https://appellate-records.courts.alaska.gov/CMSPublic/UserControl/OpenOpinionDocument?docNumber=7576&caseNumber=S17721&opinionType=OP","id":5141934,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/12/30/in_the_matter_of_the_necessity_for_the_hospitalization_of_mark_v._in_the.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T23:57:14.923536Z","date_created":"2021-12-31T01:02:07.208445Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c3cbc2455b69aa8e037e89587dab254626c9ed28","snippet":"      Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER.\n      Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,\n      303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email\n      corrections@akcourts.gov.\n\n\n\n               THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA\n\nIn the Matter of the Necessity                      )\nfor the Hospitalization of                          )   Supreme Co","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5141934],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6527519/in-re-educational-trust-for-the-benefit-of-chambers/","attorney":"Eric L. Winkle, for appellant., Kimberly J. Scott, for participant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Miles H. Shore, for participant School District of Philadelphia.","caseName":"In re Educational Trust for the Benefit of Chambers","caseNameFull":"In re Educational Trust for the Benefit of Chambers","citation":["40 Pa. D. & C.5th 278","2014 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 237"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6527519,"court":"Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County","court_citation_string":"","court_id":"pactcomplphilad","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-08-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"O.C. No. 169 IC of 2005","docket_id":63457370,"judge":"Carrafiello","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:03:16.415206Z","date_created":"2022-06-25T00:31:43.767261Z","score":{"bm25":27.736721}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6401203,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T06:50:08.618813Z","date_created":"2022-06-25T00:31:43.775320Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nCARRAFIELLO, J.,\n— Ronald Chambers and Leslie Chambers, (hereinafter referred to as “appellants”), appeal the trial court’s adjudication dated April 28, 2014 of the first and final account of the Ferren Chambers Educational Trust as stated by appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the appellants’ objections, and the objections of appellee School District of Philadelphia.\nAppellants also appeal the trial cou","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6401203],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2114642/iowa-right-to-life-committee-inc-v-tooker/","attorney":"James Bopp, Jr., Richard E. Coleson, Jared Haynie, Joseph E. La Rue, Kaylan L. Phillips, Bopp Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, Adam C. Gregg, Sean P. Moore, Brian P. Rickert, Brown Winick Graves Gross Baskerville & Schoenebaum PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff., Jeffrey S. Thompson, Attorney General of Iowa, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.","caseName":"Iowa Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Tooker","caseNameFull":"IOWA RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Megan TOOKER, in Her Official Capacity as Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Executive Director; James Albert, John Walsh, Patricia Harper, Gerald Sullivan, Saima Zafar, and Carole Tillotson, in Their Official Capacities as Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Members, Defendants","citation":["795 F. Supp. 2d 852","2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73319","2011 WL 2649980"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":2114642,"court":"District Court, S.D. Iowa","court_citation_string":"S.D. Iowa","court_id":"iasd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-06-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"4:10-cv-416 RP-TJS","docket_id":1964282,"judge":"Robert W. Pratt","lexisCite":"2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73319","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T08:57:18.647563Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T20:51:32.565934Z","score":{"bm25":27.650745}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2616,"cites":[749,1741,103959,106334,109015,109271,109380,109964,111719,111722,111782,112027,112087,112348,112398,112477,112747,118335,118427,130151,131149,134752,145684,145776,150541,216742,218508,219735,670563,679583,719642,729694,740441,755211,755859,766952,772276,781328,783349,787551,793478,795206,1025597,1300965,1449018,2143796,2150789,2185350,2477336,2576183],"download_url":null,"id":2114642,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T17:22:58.640723Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:21:19.657313Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f70335dbbbdcd95a67145ca10f6e4357a09af6d9","snippet":"\n795 F.Supp.2d 852 (2011)\nIOWA RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC. Plaintiff,\nv. *853 \nMegan TOOKER,[1] in her official capacity as Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Executive Director; James Albert, John Walsh, Patricia Harper, Gerald Sullivan, Saima Zafar, and Carole Tillotson, in their official capacities as Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board Members, Defendants.\nNo.","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2114642],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2624188/thaxton-v-beneficial-mortgage-co/","attorney":"Timothy C. Janak, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiffs/Appellants., Dan M. Peters, Fuller, Tubb, Pomeroy & Stokes, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants/Appellees.","caseName":"Thaxton v. Beneficial Mortgage Co.","caseNameFull":"John F. THAXTON, II and Annette Thaxton, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE CO. OF OKLAHOMA and Beneficial Oklahoma, Inc., Defendants/Appellees","citation":["2006 OK CIV APP 101","145 P.3d 124","2006 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 66","2006 WL 2520669"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":2624188,"court":"Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla. Civ. App.","court_id":"oklacivapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2006-08-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"103,080","docket_id":282314,"judge":"Doug Gabbard II","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:25:45.175540Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T08:09:17.008334Z","score":{"bm25":27.240702}},"neutralCite":"2006 OK CIV APP 101","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9795675,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T07:50:25.756678Z","date_created":"2023-08-31T03:35:38.730375Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOpinion by\nDOUG GABBARD II, Presiding Judge.\n{ 1 Plaintiffs, John F. Thaxton II and Annette Thaxton, appeal an order of summary judgment granted in favor of Defendants, Beneficial Mortgage Co. (BMC) and Beneficial Oklahoma, Inc. (BOI). For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.\nFACTS\n{ 2 In July 1994, Dennis and Ja","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":8168,"cites":[1121386,1132078,1157061,1161375,1227023,1276574,1374780,1389704,2520605,2570722,3798384,3814154,3817306,3824534,3835018],"download_url":null,"id":2624188,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T21:21:05.444550Z","date_created":"2013-11-01T20:42:45.963907Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"622e87fc68977ec95c6fc5acf9a930a624aefe02","snippet":"\n145 P.3d 124 (2006)\n2006 OK CIV APP 101\nJohn F. THAXTON, II and Annette Thaxton, Plaintiffs/Appellants,\nv.\nBENEFICIAL MORTGAGE CO. OF OKLAHOMA and Beneficial Oklahoma, Inc., Defendants/Appellees.\nNo. 103,080.\nCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4.\nAugust 1, 2006.\nTimothy C. Janak, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiffs/Appellants.\nDan ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9795675,9795676,2624188],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9399582/water-for-flathead-v-deq/","attorney":"","caseName":"Water for Flathead v. DEQ","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 MT 86"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9399582,"court":"Montana Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Mont.","court_id":"mont","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-05-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"DA 22-0113","docket_id":63243828,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-03T17:25:59.586008Z","date_created":"2023-05-16T23:04:47.714321Z","score":{"bm25":27.19635}},"neutralCite":"2023 MT 86","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[883500,884532,885071,887469,888218,889540,890131,890257,4201265],"download_url":"https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=430384","id":9395058,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/05/16/water_for_flathead_v._deq.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:51:53.129018Z","date_created":"2023-05-16T23:04:47.717031Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b0e58f62353b29a64991daa75d89fadf7b9a23b2","snippet":"                                                                                       05/16/2023\n\n\n                                       DA 22-0112\n\n          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA\n                                       2023 MT 86\n\n\n\nWATER FOR FLATHEAD’S FUTURE, INC., AMY WALLER,\nSTEVEN MOORE, and CYNTHIA EDSTROM,\n\n           Plaintiffs and Appellees,\n\n    v.\n\nMONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,\n\n           Defendant and Appellant,\n\n    and\n\nMONTANA ARTESIAN WAT","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9395058],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Direct Appeal","syllabus":"Opinion - Published - Justice Rice, reversed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4300589/john-e-rodarte-v-beneficial-texas-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"John E. Rodarte v. Beneficial Texas, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4300589,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-San Antonio","court_id":"txctapp4","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-11-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"04-15-00647-CV","docket_id":4467164,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T11:45:17.000748Z","date_created":"2016-09-30T22:19:23.686279Z","score":{"bm25":27.164806}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=8213&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa05%5cOpinion","id":4077850,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/11/06/john_e._rodarte_v._beneficial_texas_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T11:45:17.005673Z","date_created":"2016-09-30T22:19:23.695133Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"858440c46796dab832012bc04bb6720d7477c9fd","snippet":"                     Aept:^/,               ' DDL 7 - 6i/\n                  ~Ti^Ul,Nc>. 2.0to- /^iy> ,~fc>r}s                      ,/\n                 _F^CtlC-l^_ A'      RO^A^Tl Ct^CCl,i£c^      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4077850],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10646246/center-for-biological-diversity-v-fws/","attorney":"","caseName":"Center for Biological Diversity v. FWS","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10646246,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":"2025-02-11","dateFiled":"2025-08-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23-5285","docket_id":68054055,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-08-01T16:00:59.939962Z","date_created":"2025-08-01T16:00:59.867718Z","score":{"bm25":27.11477}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118096,184714,185883,187224,932061,4255500,4698691,6974620,7863691,7864584,9350107,9420050,9422496,9427261,9428741,9429294,9432577,9433887,9434951,9435108,9435380,9778223,9795100,9823248,9842696,9877989],"download_url":"https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/08/23-5285-2128314.pdf","id":11112833,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/08/01/center_for_biological_diversity_v._fws.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T00:33:27.110045Z","date_created":"2025-08-01T16:00:59.870471Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"269e727f35906c332becf4e4ff04d9afb0c4a867","snippet":" United States Court of Appeals\n         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued February 11, 2025               Decided August 1, 2025\n\n                         No. 23-5285\n\n            CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,\n                       APPELLANT\n\n                              v.\n\n    UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ET AL.,\n                      APPELLEES\n\n\n        Appeal from the United States District Court\n                for the District of Columbia\n                    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11112833],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}