{"count":1134973,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0zMi4zMDE2MiZzPTQ2MDk2MTAmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wOS0zMCZwPTI%3D&q=STANDARD+OF+REVIEW+AND+TIMING&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6462448/new-milford-v-standard-demolition-services-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"New Milford v. Standard Demolition Services, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["212 Conn. App. 30"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":6462448,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-04-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC43874","docket_id":63259852,"judge":"Bright; Elgo; Bear","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:48:00.856276Z","date_created":"2022-04-25T12:01:36.964577Z","score":{"bm25":52.387745}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[99359,1128751,1193388,1279949,1280458,1407287,1548905,1911504,1953363,1973608,2074872,2187150,2441868,2552943,3317543,3323603,4088417,4220428,4224027,4346477,4444703,4558112,4708328,5140653,6479952,7839124,7839184,7839628,7841850,7842897,7854910,7857260,7860778,7860912,7863421,7864446,7864820,7864857,9156986,9638356,9800494],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP212/212AP218.pdf","id":6334559,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/04/26/new_milford_v._standard_demolition_services_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T09:23:18.841223Z","date_created":"2022-04-25T12:01:36.967804Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7c1ae5b1dd3413a5851d285f904d3f7e7bb1d2be","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 to recover damages for breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Litchfield, where the defendant filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the matter was tried to the court, Shaban, J.; judgment for the plaintiff on the complaint and on the counterclaim, from which the defendant appealed and the plaintiff cross appealed to this court. Reversed in part; further proceedings. Raymond A. Garcia, with whom were Nyle K. Davey, and, on the brief, Lauren Lyngholm Crowe and Jona- than A. Krumeich, for the appellant-cross appellee (defendant). John D. Tower, with whom was Graham W. Moller, for the appellee-cross appellant (plaintiff)","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6334559],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff town sought to recover damages from the defendant contractor for breach of contract. The plaintiff owned a vacant brass mill factory that was contaminated with, inter alia, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The plaintiff, on the advice of consultants, applied to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for permission to demol- ish and clean up the property and engage contractors to perform the work. The plaintiff issued a notice inviting prospective contractors to provide bids for the third phase of the project, which involved the demolition, abatement and remediation of the property. The notice indi- cated that the contractor would be allowed to keep the scrap value of any structural steel salvaged from the site. The plaintiff made all public information about the project available to prospective bidders, including a report from one of its consultants that referenced the presence of PCBs throughout the building. The plaintiff also provided a letter to all prospective bidders clarifying that the selected contractor would be responsible for the sampling and disposal of any PCB contaminated material. The defendant submitted the winning bid for the contract, in which it did not allocate any funds for the remediation or disposal of any contaminated structural steel on the site, as it believed that the steel was not contaminated and could be recycled without remediation. Once selected, the defendant executed a certification acknowledging that it had read and agreed to abide by all conditions set forth in the EPA's approval letter for the third phase of the project, which included attachments regarding the cleanup of PCB contaminated material and correspondence between the EPA and the plaintiff regarding the PCB contamination of various materials, including steel beams. The parties then entered into a contract for the phase three work, which expressly incorporated the EPA approval letter and established a 140 day deadline for the defendant to complete the job. Two months after the plaintiff had issued the defendant a notice to proceed, the defendant still had not obtained EPA approval of its contractor work plan, which was required before it could begin any substantial demolition work, and it had become engaged in a dispute with the plaintiff regarding the testing and disposal of the structural steel on the property. The defendant contended that the plaintiff mischaracterized the steel, leading it to believe that the steel was not contaminated and could be disposed of without remediation. The defendant claimed that it remained ready, able and willing to perform the work on the project, but it refused to do so if it was required to sample the steel to determine whether it was contaminated and told the plaintiff that it had accidentally executed the contract, as it had submitted its bid without information regarding the contamination of the steel or knowledge that the disposal of any contami- nated steel would be its responsibility. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant, notifying the defendant that it was in default because, inter alia, it would not be able to timely complete its work under the contract and had anticipatorily breached various provisions of the contract, and, consequently, its employment was terminated. The plaintiff rebid the project and hired C Co. to complete the work on the site, including the testing and disposal of the structural steel. C Co. was unable to finish its work, however, due in part to the increased expense and time required to finish the project as a result of the defendant's intervention, which led to additional testing requirements imposed by both the EPA and the trial court. The trial court found that the plaintiff had established its claim for breach of contract and had suffered dam- ages, limited to the liquidated damages provision of the contract, in an amount equal to 254 days, less the retainage held by the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, and the plaintiff cross-appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in its award of damages. Held: 1. The defendant's claim that the trial court misapplied state and federal environmental laws was belied by the trial court's findings, which were supported by the record: the defendant did not raise before the trial court, nor did the trial court address, the defendant's claims that the plaintiff lacked proper authorization from the EPA to work on the undis- closed waste at the site or that the plaintiff and the trial court disregarded certain statutory (§ 22a-467) requirements relating to the disposal of PCB contaminated material, and, accordingly, this court declined to address those claims; moreover, the defendant's claims that the plaintiff failed to adequately characterize the site and that the plaintiff was required under the contract to paint chip test the steel beams prior to the defendant performing any work at the site lacked merit, as the trial court found that the contract did not require paint chip testing, that the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witnesses that paint chip sampling under such circumstances was not customary was credible, that there was no express statement in the contract that the steel was not contami- nated, that the plaintiff performed its obligations under the contract, and that the contract overwhelmingly placed the obligation for the testing, handling and processing of the material on the site on the defendant and expressly made clear that the risk of the condition of the materials being different than anticipated was solely on the defendant, and such findings were supported by the clear and unambiguous provisions of the contract and the documents related thereto; furthermore, this action involved a breach of contract claim, and the defendant failed to provide a clear explanation as to how its claims concerning the EPA regulations circumvented the trial court's findings regarding the contract and failed to raise at trial its claims that the plaintiff's conduct constituted a viola- tion of the EPA regulations and that the trial court erred in failing to find such a violation; additionally, although the defendant may have made its bid and entered the contract on the basis of a mistaken basic assumption, neither the trial court nor this court was permitted to rewrite the contract or to relieve the defendant of its obligations thereunder, as the defendant was a sophisticated and experienced party with respect to the type of work covered by the contract, it had the opportunity to address any issues it had with the proposed terms and interpretation of the contract prior to its execution, and the circumstances of the contract formation were not unconscionable. 2. This court declined to review the defendant's claim that the trial court erred in finding that the contract was not impossible to perform: because the defendant failed to plead impossibility as a special defense, such issue was not properly before the trial court, which, accordingly, did not undertake the necessary analysis of such claim nor did it make any findings thereon, and, as a result, the trial court could not have erred in failing to find that the defendant's performance under the contract was impossible; moreover, it was incumbent on the defendant to seek an articulation of the trial court's decision as to its failure to make a finding on a claim that the defendant alleged was properly before the trial court, and, in the absence of such an articulation, the record was inadequate for this court to review the claim. 3. The defendant's challenge to the trial court's implicit determination that the plaintiff lawfully had terminated the contract was unavailing: the defendant's claim was premised on a faulty assumption, namely, that the plaintiff was in default under the contract, because the trial court expressly found that the plaintiff had performed its obligations under the contract and that there was ample evidence of the defendant's breach of its obligations under the contract, which findings were supported by the record. 4. The defendant's claim that the change orders granted to C Co. in connec- tion with additional paint chip testing requirements imposed by the EPA—which were not a part of the defendant's contract with the plain- tiff—constituted an admission by the plaintiff that its contract with the defendant could not have been performed without such testing was contrary to the record and unavailing: the defendant's argument failed to acknowledge the basis for the change orders sought by C Co., namely, that the trial court found that the plaintiff was not required to conduct paint chip sampling under the contract with the defendant because the EPA did not require such testing until after the plaintiff had terminated that contract, as the requirement was instituted as a result of the defen- dant's unilaterally contacting the EPA with respect to the paint chip sampling it had conducted on the site as part of this litigation; moreover, such finding was supported by the record and was not clearly erroneous. 5. Although the amount of the trial court's award of liquidated damages was proper, that court erroneously failed to determine whether the plaintiff proved that it had suffered any compensable actual or consequential nondelay damages: a. The trial court improperly determined that liquidated damages were the plaintiff's exclusive remedy under the contract: the language in the liquidated damages provision clearly applied to damages resulting from delay, there was no language in the contract expressly stating that such damages were the plaintiff's exclusive remedy for a breach unrelated to the defendant's delay in performance, and to interpret liquidated damages as the plaintiff's sole remedy would render the contract's damages and losses provision superfluous; accordingly, the trial court erroneously failed to determine whether the plaintiff proved that it had suffered any compensable actual or consequential nondelay damages and, if so, the amount of such damages, and, as a result, the case was remanded to the trial court for a new hearing in damages. b. The trial court did not err in limiting the award of liquidated damages to 254 days: the plaintiff's claim on appeal that liquidated damages instead should have run through the date of the trial court's decision failed, as the plaintiff did not make such a request at trial and the premise of such claim no longer existed because it was based on the trial court's determination that liquidated damages were the plaintiff's exclusive rem- edy under the contract, which this court concluded was made in error. Argued November 30, 2021—officially released April 26, 2022"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1060586/appellate-court-to-apply-a-clearly-erroneous-stand/","attorney":"","caseName":"Appellate Court To Apply a Clearly Erroneous Standard of Review, Coln v. City of Savannah, 966","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":1060586,"court":"Tennessee Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Tenn.","court_id":"tenn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2000-06-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1998-00091-SC-R11-CV","docket_id":346899,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T01:32:55.940731Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T08:42:17.471151Z","score":{"bm25":43.669098}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1060893,1535167,1999259,2432582],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/OPINIONS/TSC/PDF/002/Crossmemp.pdf","id":1060586,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2000/06/20/appellate_court_to_apply_a_clearly_erroneous_standard_of_review_coln_v..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T01:58:34.546893Z","date_created":"2013-10-09T18:51:42.696714Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b3b906196380c504d346499d192f0d4b2046f3c8","snippet":" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE\n AT JACKSON\n\n GEORGIA CROSS, ET AL. v. CITY OF MEMPHIS\n\n Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County\n No. 72984-6 T.D. George H. Brown, Jr., Judge\n\n\n\n No. W 1998-00091-SC-R11-CV — Decided June 20, 2000\n\n\nThis is an appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County which, following a bench trial, allocated\n100% fault to the City ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1060586],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4578105/state-v-chesnic/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Chesnic","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2018 Ohio 5327"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4578105,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-12-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2018-A-0030","docket_id":8466783,"judge":"Wright","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:24:40.873489Z","date_created":"2018-12-31T20:28:28.137046Z","score":{"bm25":42.647842}},"neutralCite":"2018 Ohio 5327","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8151,"cites":[107564,110976,111788,118391,145654,3742729,4230232],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2018/2018-Ohio-5327.pdf","id":4355358,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/12/31/state_v._chesnic.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:55:01.530925Z","date_created":"2018-12-31T20:28:28.161146Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f9d95e6ff4a9669c66419a99fdde0c83aaef5179","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Chesnic, 2018-Ohio-5327.]\n\n\n IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n\n ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO\n\n\n STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION\n\n Plaintiff-Appellee, :\n CASE NO. 2018-A-0030\n - vs - :\n\n AMBER M. CHE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4355358],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"CRIMINAL LAW - motion to suppress properly denied mixed standard of review purse on shoulder and under control at time of arrest State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/889562/citizens-awareness-network-v-montana-board-of-environmental-review/","attorney":"For Appellants: Matthew O. Clifford, Attorney at Law; San Francisco, California., For Appellees: David M. Rusoff, Attorney at Law; Helena {Department of Environmental Quality)-, Michael J. Uda, Susanne F. Bessette; Doney Crowley Bloomquist Payne Uda, P.C.; Helena {Thompson River Power).","caseName":"Citizens Awareness Network v. Montana Board of Environmental Review","caseNameFull":"CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK, WOMEN’S VOICES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, and CLARK FORK COALITION, Petitioners and Appellants, v. MONTANA BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, Respondent and Appellees, and MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and THE THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN, LLC, Respondent-Intervenors and Appellees","citation":["2010 MT 10","355 Mont. 60","227 P.3d 583","2010 Mont. LEXIS 13"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":889562,"court":"Montana Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Mont.","court_id":"mont","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-01-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"DA 09-0070","docket_id":633243,"judge":"Leaphart, Cotter, Rice, Morris, Nelson, Brown, McGrath","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T01:04:52.231519Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T11:04:39.504296Z","score":{"bm25":39.97587}},"neutralCite":"2010 MT 10","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9512364,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T06:29:36.671665Z","date_created":"2023-08-06T22:13:43.352480Z"},"ordering_key":3,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJUSTICE RICE,\ndissenting.\n*77¶46 I agree with Justice Cotter’s thoughts with regard to the correct standard of review of abuse of discretion. I write separately because, in my view, the request for leave to amend in this case was improper as a matter of law and, thus, granting the request would have ","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9512363,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T06:29:36.667219Z","date_created":"2023-08-06T22:13:43.348561Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJUSTICE COTTER\ndissents.\n¶34 I dissent from the Court’s decision to reverse the order denying the Conservation Groups’ motion for leave to amend their affidavit. In this connection, I dissent from the Court’s sua sponte decision to modify the standard of review applicable to orders entered pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 15(c). I would continue to adhere to our precedent t","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9512362,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T06:29:36.657461Z","date_created":"2023-08-06T22:13:43.342146Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJUSTICE LEAPHART\ndelivered the Opinion of the Court.\n¶1 Citizens Awareness Network, Women’s Voices for the Environment, and Clark Fork Coalition (collectively, “Conservation Groups”) appeal the order of the District Court for the Twentieth Judicial District, Sanders County, denying their motion for summary judgment and upholding the decision of the Montana Board of","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[109827,459064,502773,609789,667161,724909,767044,770973,773773,781934,795406,878709,879216,879526,880212,880608,880682,880728,882057,882198,883139,883259,883270,883607,885969,886925,887778,887856,888111,888250,1136944,1147037,1475960],"download_url":"http://searchcourts.mt.gov/getDocument?vid={33BCD6BD-4298-47A9-AC79-17EAEEEDA7EF}","id":889562,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2010/01/26/citizens_awareness_v._deq.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T19:29:02.778733Z","date_created":"2013-06-05T06:03:54.780033Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ffa48e56f7fdd154f8000cba1bfa774ce6d36512","snippet":" DA 09-0070 January 26 2010\n\n IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA\n 2010 MT 10\n\n\nCITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK, WOMEN’S VOICES\nFOR THE ENVIRONMENT, and CLARK FORK COALITION,\n\n Petitioners and Appellants,\n\n v.\n\nMONTANA BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW,\n\n Respondent and Appellees,\n\n and\n\nMONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMEN","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9512362,9512363,9512364,889562],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6478824/state-v-scott/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Scott","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2022 Ohio 2071"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":6478824,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-06-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"L-21-1128","docket_id":63393693,"judge":"Mayle","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:49:59.327193Z","date_created":"2022-06-17T18:09:07.144717Z","score":{"bm25":38.1012}},"neutralCite":"2022 Ohio 2071","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[106936,2689579,2692707,2720356,2760668,3722846,4076912,4116601,4209837,4355043,4471430,4653787,4697183],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2022/2022-Ohio-2071.pdf","id":6350935,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/06/17/state_v._scott.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T03:12:48.531840Z","date_created":"2022-06-17T18:09:07.157126Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4fb46a08705bea9d395d7ea3b444c3969d69f5d8","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Scott, 2022-Ohio-2071.]\n\n\n\n\n IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n LUCAS COUNTY\n\n\nState of Ohio/City of Sylvania Court of Appeals No. L-21-1128\n\n Appellee Trial Court No. TRC2000745A\n\nv.\n\nBrian K. Scott DECISION AND JUDGMENT\n\n Appellant ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6350935],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Error is forfeited where appellant fails to file timely objections to magistrate's decision, thus plain-error standard of review applies. Ohio districts differ in interpreting \"at a clearly marked stop line\" in R.C. 4511.13(C)(1)(a). Officer's interpretation of statute was objectively reasonable in light of ambiguity, thus suppression of evidence not warranted. Officer administered field sobriety tests in conformance with NHTSA guidelines even if performed a little faster than the guidelines recommend."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4833534/jacobson-v-resnick/","attorney":"","caseName":"Jacobson v. Resnick","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 Ohio 5424"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4833534,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-11-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"108169","docket_id":18690133,"judge":"Celebrezze","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:37:04.440744Z","date_created":"2020-11-25T16:11:47.384896Z","score":{"bm25":36.721493}},"neutralCite":"2020 Ohio 5424","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8067,"cites":[2702515,2702662,3156248,3783220,4209536],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2020/2020-Ohio-5424.pdf","id":4637313,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/11/25/jacobson_v._resnick.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T20:08:44.451938Z","date_created":"2020-11-25T16:11:47.400411Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"58ff387af1d3dd9bda2de2bead55d16faabeca93","snippet":"[Cite as Jacobson v. Resnick, 2020-Ohio-5424.]\n\n\n COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA\n\nWENDY JACOBSON, ET AL., :\n\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, :\n No. 108169\n v. :\n\nBEVERLY RESNICK, ET AL., :\n\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4637313],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Summary judgment de novo standard of review inter vivos gift check R.C. 1303.45 intent of donor supporting affidavits Civ.R. 56(F) extension of time abuse of discretion. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in determining that no genuine issues of material fact existed with regard to any of the claims in this matter and that summary judgment was appropriate. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for extension of time under Civ.R. 56(F)."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9373827/walmart-inc-v-board-of-review/","attorney":"","caseName":"Walmart, Inc. v. Board of Review","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9373827,"court":"Court of Appeals of Iowa","court_citation_string":"Iowa Ct. App.","court_id":"iowactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-02-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-1018","docket_id":66795967,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T00:59:45.160679Z","date_created":"2023-02-08T16:05:06.279598Z","score":{"bm25":36.06934}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1290380,1599334,1623400,1690515,1708825,1782662,1800158,1921344,1963204,2136226,3176959,7876781],"download_url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/15460/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion","id":9369303,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/02/08/walmart_inc._v._board_of_review.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-09T04:09:52.880624Z","date_created":"2023-02-08T16:05:06.280562Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"72afd834169f4c3cbeed9f61edc07f4f695a081e","snippet":" IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA\n\n No. 21-1018\n Filed February 8, 2023\n\n\nWALMART, INC. and SAM'S REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST,\n Plaintiffs-Appellees,\n\nvs.\n\nCITY OF DAVENPORT IOWA BOARD OF REVIEW,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n_________________________________\n\nWALMART, INC. and WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST,\n Plaintiffs-Appellees,\n\nvs.\n\nCITY OF DAVENPORT IOWA BOARD OF REVIEW,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9369303],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7413167/ardan-v-board-of-review/","attorney":"Sarah S. Hymowitz argued the cause for appellant (Legal Services of New Jersey, attorney; Sarah S. Hymowitz, Keith Talbot, Anisa Rahim, and Melville D. Miller, on the briefs)., Christopher J. Hamner, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Board of Review (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, and Robert M. Strang, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief)., Cindy M. Perr, Associate General Counsel, argued the cause for respondent Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County, Inc. (Lourdes Health System, attorney; Cindy M. Perr, on the brief.)","caseName":"Ardan v. Board of Review","caseNameFull":"MARGO S. ARDAN v. BOARD OF REVIEW, LOURDES MEDICAL CENTER OF BURLINGTON COUNTY, INC., AND ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS","citation":["231 N.J. 589","177 A.3d 768"],"citeCount":70,"cluster_id":7413167,"court":"Supreme Court of New Jersey","court_citation_string":"N.J.","court_id":"nj","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-02-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"077771","docket_id":64403896,"judge":"Albin, Fernandez, Lavecchia, Patterson, Rabner, Solomon, Timpone, Vina","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T14:01:11.485044Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T22:16:40.619097Z","score":{"bm25":35.984577}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7332512,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:47:31.136480Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T22:16:40.630399Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJUSTICE PATTERSON\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nNew Jersey’s Unemployment Compensation Law provides that a person who leaves work “voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work” is ineligible for unemployment benefits until she is “reemployed and works eight weeks in employment” in a new position. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). A regulation prescribes an exception to that rule. It provides that if th","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7332512,7332513],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10636612/watch-hill-fire-district-v-westerly-zoning-board-of-review/","attorney":"","caseName":"Watch Hill Fire District v. Westerly Zoning Board of Review","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10636612,"court":"Supreme Court of Rhode Island","court_citation_string":"R.I.","court_id":"ri","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2022-0327-M.P.","docket_id":70836397,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-18T19:07:49.751213Z","date_created":"2025-07-18T18:12:01.258120Z","score":{"bm25":35.74646}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1953066,1998202,2197519,2362071],"download_url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/Supreme-22-0327.pdf","id":11103199,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/18/watch_hill_fire_district_v._westerly_zoning_board_of_review.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:20:22.027195Z","date_created":"2025-07-18T18:12:01.264423Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fb0cf9e9d6de4489066eebc9bb4b7fb4b3442393","snippet":" Supreme Court\n\n No. 2022-327-M.P.\n (WC 21-195)\n\n Watch Hill Fire District :\n\n v. :\n\nWesterly Zoning Board of Review et al. :\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision\n before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers\n are requested to notif","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11103199],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This Court issued a writ of certiorari to review a Superior Court judgment affirming a decision by the Westerly Zoning Board of Review granting a dimensional variance to expand a nonconforming structure in favor of the respondent, Zoey Watch Hill, LLC, for its property located at 14 Larkin Road in Westerly, Rhode Island. Before this Court, the petitioner, Watch Hill Fire District (WHFD), presented one issue for review: \"Whether the Court should reverse the Superior Court's Decision because Zoey failed to meet the Zoning Statute's requirement to establish that they have 'no other reasonable alternative way to enjoy a legally permitted beneficial use of the subject property.'\" The Supreme Court held that the trial justice correctly determined that the zoning board applied the correct hardship standard—more than a mere inconvenience—in finding that the respondent would not be able to enjoy a reasonable use of its property without approval of the dimensional variance. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4396448/in-re-title-ballot-title-and-submission-clause-for-20172018-4/","attorney":"Attorneys for Petitioner Scott E. Smith: Recht Kornfeld, P.C., Mark G. Grueskin, Denver, Colorado-, Attorneys for Petitioner D. Michael Kopp: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreek LLP, Jason R, Dunn, David B. Meschke, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Title Board: Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, LeeAnn Morrill, First Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, No appearance on behalf of Respondents.","caseName":"In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2017–2018 4","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE FOR 2017-2018 #4. Scott E. Smith and D. Michael Kopp, Petitioners, v. Daniel Hayes and Julianne Page, Respondents, and Suzanne Staiert, Sharon Eubanks, and Glenn Roper, Title Board","citation":["2017 CO 57","395 P.3d 318","2017 WL 2333119","2017 Colo. LEXIS 433"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":4396448,"court":"Supreme Court of Colorado","court_citation_string":"Colo.","court_id":"colo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-05-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Supreme Court Case 17SA6","docket_id":6068328,"judge":"Eid","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:33:08.471017Z","date_created":"2017-06-01T18:07:15.500174Z","score":{"bm25":35.440907}},"neutralCite":"2017 CO 57","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1193772,2511830,3168560],"download_url":"http://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/Sections/Opinions/5-30-17/17SA6.pdf?ver=2017-06-01-112925-993","id":4173701,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/05/30/in_re_title_ballot_title_and_submission_clause_for_20172018_4.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:48:49.471132Z","date_created":"2017-06-01T18:07:15.506435Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1efdff12cc60377d31546b6362591c20623da2a9","snippet":"\n\n\n JUSTICE EID\n \n\n delivered the Opinion of the Court.\n \n\n ¶1 Pursuant to section 1-40-107, C.R.S. (2016), petitioners Scott E. Smith and D. Michael Kopp (“Petitioners”), both registered electors, appeal the actions of the Ballot Title Setting Board (“Title Board”) regarding the setting of the title and ballot title and submission clause for Proposed Initiative 2017-2","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4173701],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"Single Subject—Fiscal Impact Statement Abstract—Standard of Review","syllabus":"Single Subject—Fiscal Impact Statement Abstract—Standard of Review. The Supreme Court held that Initiative 4 contains a single subject: limiting housing growth in Colorado. The Court also considered, for the first time, its authority to review an abstract prepared pursuant to CRS § 1-40-105.5 and the proper standard to apply when reviewing such an abstract. The Court held that CRS § 1-40-107 grants the Court reviewing authority, and the proper standard of review is the same standard the Court applies to the single-subject and clear-title requirements—that is, the Court draws all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Title Board's decision and will only overturn the Title Board's decision in a clear case. Under that standard, the Court upheld the Title Board's approval of the abstract at issue in this case. Therefore, the Court affirmed the actions of the Title Board."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/806554/north-fork-coal-corp-v-federal-mine-safety-health-review-commission/","attorney":"ARGUED: Stephen M. Hodges, Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, Abingdon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robin Rosenbluth, United States Department of Labor, Arlington, Virginia, for Respondents. ON BRIEF: Stephen M. Hodges, Timothy W. Gresham, Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, Abingdon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robin Rosenbluth, United States Department of Labor, Arlington, Virginia, Tony Oppegard, Lexington, Kentucky, Wes Addington, Appalachian Citizens Law Center, Inc., Whites-burg, Kentucky, for Respondents.","caseName":"North Fork Coal Corp. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission","caseNameFull":"NORTH FORK COAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; Secretary of Labor; Mark Gray, Respondents","citation":["691 F.3d 735","2012 WL 3289806","2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16921"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":806554,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","court_citation_string":"6th Cir.","court_id":"ca6","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-08-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"11-3398, 11-3684","docket_id":964966,"judge":"Sutton, Griffin, Hood","lexisCite":"2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16921","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T00:29:11.002755Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T13:26:55.087190Z","score":{"bm25":35.050373}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9501109,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:58:22.412159Z","date_created":"2023-08-05T18:56:53.958543Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nSUTTON, Circuit Judge,\nconcurring.\nI join Judge Griffin’s thorough opinion and write separately to make one point: *745The proper standard of review — whether under Skidmore or Chevron — makes no difference, as the relevant language of the statute defeats the Secretary’s argument either way.\nThe relevant language","type":"concurrence-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[1159,78214,104034,109382,111043,111221,111372,111838,112561,118032,118362,118493,148705,185770,186008,380130,518722,682711,715676,781182,1189313,1270100],"download_url":"http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0263p-06.pdf","id":806554,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2012/08/14/north_fork_coal_corporation_v._mshr.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T15:15:15.567463Z","date_created":"2012-08-14T13:55:21Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b6b46521bb252a1e2e987cdc1c126db7f024cf56","snippet":" RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206\n File Name: 12a0263p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n _________________\n\n\n X\n -\n NORTH FORK COAL CORPORATION,\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[806554,9501108,9501109],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10636614/rh-mcleod-family-llc-v-westerly-zoning-board-of-review-4-spray-rock-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"RH McLeod Family LLC v. Westerly Zoning Board of Review; 4 Spray Rock, LLC v. Westerly Zoning Board of Review","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10636614,"court":"Supreme Court of Rhode Island","court_citation_string":"R.I.","court_id":"ri","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2023-0104-M.P. and 2023-0117-M.P.","docket_id":70836400,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-18T19:07:49.820621Z","date_created":"2025-07-18T18:12:02.959769Z","score":{"bm25":34.361534}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1463771,1942038,1953066,1998202,2052720,2084358,2107895,2263104,2364266,2549596,4965673,9650033,9651291],"download_url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/Supreme-23-0104.pdf","id":11103201,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/18/rh_mcleod_family_llc_v._westerly_zoning_board_of_review_4_spray_rock_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:20:22.023268Z","date_created":"2025-07-18T18:12:02.961304Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4459d228730ecac5b911898e3049f7bb98faf411","snippet":" Supreme Court\n\n RH McLeod Family LLC et al. : No. 2023-104-M.P.\n (WC 21-495)\n v. :\n\nWesterly Zoning Board of Review et al. :\n\n\n 4 Spray Rock, LLC : No. 2023-117-M.P.\n (WC 21-497)\n v. :\n\nWesterly Zoning Board of Rev","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11103201],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Supreme Court issued writs of certiorari to review a Superior Court judgment affirming a decision by the Westerly Zoning Board of Review that granted a dimensional variance to the respondents, Todd Nordstrom and Karyn Nordstrom, enabling them to demolish the existing house on the property and build a new three story house. The petitioners, RH McLeod Family LLC, Margot Perot, and 4 Spray Rock, LLC, argued that the trial justice erred in affirming the decision of the zoning board. The Supreme Court held that trial justice erred in affirming the decision of the zoning board because the plain language of the ordinance prevented the Nordstroms from obtaining a dimensional variance to demolish the existing nonconforming structure and building a new nonconforming structure. Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Superior Court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5006673/medical-review-panel-proceedings-for-the-claim-of-serpas-v-tulane/","attorney":"Lanny R. Zatzkis, Karen D. McCarthy, Zatzkis, McCarthy & Associates, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant., Gregory C. Weiss, Elaine W. Selle, Weiss & Eason, L.L.P., Mandeville, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.","caseName":"Medical Review Panel Proceedings for the Claim of Serpas v. Tulane University Hospital & Clinic","caseNameFull":"In re Medical Review Panel Proceedings for the Claim of Arthur A. SERPAS, Jr. v. TULANE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AND CLINIC Arthur A. Serpas, Jr. v. Robert L. Barrack, M.D.","citation":["161 So. 3d 726","2014 WL 1943262"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":5006673,"court":"Louisiana Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"La. Ct. App.","court_id":"lactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-05-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Nos. 2013-CA-1590, 2013-CA-1591","docket_id":60247317,"judge":"Bonin, III, Ledet, McKay","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-17T21:44:34.982760Z","date_created":"2021-08-22T00:59:25.730612Z","score":{"bm25":33.49204}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4818581,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T20:58:24.322067Z","date_created":"2021-08-22T00:59:25.767872Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nROSEMARY LEDET, Judge.\n| ¶ This is a medical malpractice case. This case involves an orthopedic surgeon’s alleged negligence in discharging a patient from the hospital, following a complicated knee replacement surgery, with a Hickman catheter in place without any order for its removal, use, or care.1 The patient, Arthur Serpas, Jr., brought this malpractice suit against the surgeon, Dr. Robert Bar","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4818581],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4429702/cynthia-m-blake-vs-board-of-reviewboard-of-review-department-of-labor/","attorney":"","caseName":"CYNTHIA M. BLAKE VS. BOARD OF REVIEW(BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)","caseNameFull":"","citation":["170 A.3d 960","452 N.J. Super. 7"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4429702,"court":"New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division","court_citation_string":"N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.","court_id":"njsuperctappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-09-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-2940-15T3","docket_id":6159746,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:42:52.413408Z","date_created":"2017-09-28T13:15:01.173261Z","score":{"bm25":33.4349}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2101935,2355990],"download_url":"http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/attorneys/assets/opinions/appellate/published/a2940-15.pdf","id":4206955,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/09/28/cynthia_m._blake_vs._board_of_reviewboard_of_review_department_of_labor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:11:39.351034Z","date_created":"2017-09-28T13:15:01.179322Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ff1a9c6fa8dbbc1ef55f688d20980572e5683b93","snippet":" NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE\n APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION\n\n SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY\n APPELLATE DIVISION\n DOCKET NO. A-2940-15T3\n\nCYNTHIA M. BLAKE,\n APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION\n Appellant,\n September 28, 2017\nv.\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4206955],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5344747/lawless-v-standard-insurance-co/","attorney":"McDermott Law, LLC, Shawn E. McDer-mott, Heather L. Petitmermet, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Swift & Bramer, LLP, Clinton P. Swift, Windsor, Colorado; Smith %CO von Schleicher + Associates, Warren von Schleicher, Chicago, Illinois, for Defendant, Appellee Standard Insurance Company., Gregory W. Smith, Adam L. Franklin, Kimberly K. Riccardi, Denver, Colorado; Berenbaum Weinshienk PC, Gary M. Kramer, Eugene M. Sprague, James L. Wooll, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Association, Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Association Board of Trustees, Carole Wright, Maryann Motza, and Rick Larson.","caseName":"Lawless v. Standard Insurance Co.","caseNameFull":"Tracey LAWLESS, Robert Hogan, and Terrilynn Mills v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Association Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Association Board of Trustees and Carole Wright, in her official capacity as Trustee, Maryann Motza, in her official capacity as Trustee and Rick Larson, in his official capacity as Trustee","citation":["338 P.3d 398","2013 COA 153","2013 WL 6116134","2013 Colo. App. LEXIS 1780"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":5344747,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-11-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals No. 12CA0567","docket_id":61692418,"judge":"Booras, Dailey, Furman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:47:39.419067Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:10:11.726005Z","score":{"bm25":33.411625}},"neutralCite":"2013 COA 153","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5177514,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:22:24.322668Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:10:11.743415Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOfiinion by\nJUDGE BOORAS\nT1 This is an appeal from the district court's review of challenges to state agency - action. Consolidated plaintiffs Tracey Lawless, Robert Hogan, and Terrilynn Mills appeal the judgments in favor of defendants, Standard Insurance Company (Standard), as well as the Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA), its Board of Trustees, and trustees Carole Wright, Maryann Motza, ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5177514],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10129877/united-states-v-standard/","attorney":"","caseName":"United States v. Standard","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10129877,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Criminal No. 1991-0559","docket_id":60821777,"judge":"Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-10-03T21:01:07.216566Z","date_created":"2024-10-03T21:01:07.141003Z","score":{"bm25":33.02588}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1810,"cites":[118381,184895,186794,187186,722508,741052,799973,802791,4157383,4160423,4276544,4284861],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?1991cr0559-2426","id":10596478,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/03/united_states_v._standard.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T19:08:14.664882Z","date_created":"2024-10-03T21:01:07.170132Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c4f41a4deadda3b11748ba3c60899dba20cb57a1","snippet":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nV.\n\nCrim. Action No. 91-559-02 (CKK)\n\nANTHONY NUGENT,\n\nDefendant.\n\nMEMORANDUM OPINION\n\nIn 1993, Anthony Nugent was sentenced to life in prison after a jury found him guilty of\ndrug trafficking and firearms offenses stemming from his participation in a large-scale illegal drug\noperation that occurred in Washington, D.C. and spanned from May 1983 through March 1991.\nAfter serving approximately thirty-four years in","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10596478],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7404755/alicea-v-board-of-review/","attorney":"Zachary R. Wall argued the cause for appellant (Alan H. Schorr & Associates, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Wall, on the brief)., Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Board of Review, Department of Labor (Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Sckeindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Reichart, on the brief).","caseName":"Alicea v. Board of Review","caseNameFull":"GENARO ALICEA v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND JOTTAN, INC.","citation":["432 N.J. Super. 347","74 A.3d 1004","2013 WL 4525311","2013 N.J. Super. LEXIS 135"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7404755,"court":"New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division","court_citation_string":"N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.","court_id":"njsuperctappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-08-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":64395257,"judge":"Koblitz","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:59:04.192811Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T21:29:12.733597Z","score":{"bm25":32.76219}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7323936,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T22:12:37.868281Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T21:29:12.741771Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nThe opinion of the Court was delivered by\nKOBLITZ, J.A.D.\nTo comply with the due process requirement that a determination of unemployment overpayment must be sent in Spanish to Puerto Rican seasonal workers, a translation of the substantive determination as well as a translation of the appeal timeline must be provided. Appellant Genaro Alicea appeals from the final decision of respondent Board of Review (Boa","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7323936],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10659983/clark-v-employees-review-board/","attorney":"","caseName":"Clark v. Employees' Review Board","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10659983,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-08-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC47020","docket_id":71192198,"judge":"Alvord; Suarez; Westbrook","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-08-25T14:05:45.797329Z","date_created":"2025-08-25T14:05:45.205848Z","score":{"bm25":32.334217}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1480391,2268290,2354588,2441640,2684606,3320610,4387250,4912727,6340976,7842893,7843548,7848417,7864434,9426279,9429945,9785126,9835615,10602683,10697060,10770572,10774497,10783211,10792605,11067538],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP234/AP234.314.pdf","id":11126570,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/08/26/clark_v._employees_review_board.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T02:17:47.650361Z","date_created":"2025-08-25T14:05:45.209031Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d89620f549b3461385d6601113cb66cacd45b4ec","snippet":"************************************************\n The “officially released” date that appears near the\nbeginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be\npublished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it\nis released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the\nbeginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-\nion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-\ncially released” date appearing in the opinion.\n All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncor","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Appeal from the decision of the named defendant finding that the termination of the plaintiff's employ- ment by the Department of Revenue Services was not arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain and tried to the court, Budzik, J.; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Marilee Corr Clark, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). Krista D. O'Brien, assistant attorney general, with whom were Ksenya Hentisz, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, William Tong, attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11126570],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff, a former managerial employee of the Department of Revenue Services who was not included in any collective bargaining agreement, appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing her appeal from the decision of the defendant board, which found that the department's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment was not arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause pursuant to statute (§ 5-202 (c)). The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court failed to use the proper just cause standard applicable to permanent state employees. Held: The trial court properly upheld the department's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment utilizing a just cause standard pursuant to the applica- ble statute (§ 5-240) and regulation (§ 5-240-1a (c)), as the plaintiff's asser- tions that she was entitled to progressive discipline prior to the termination of her employment or to the application of the common-law seven step test to determine just cause conflicted with the statutory and regulatory definitions that the legislature has adopted for nonunion employees. The trial court did not make certain improper legal and factual findings that were not made by the defendant, as the court correctly determined that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the termination of the plaintiff's employment on the basis of her engagement in activities that were detrimental to the best interest of the department and that the defendant's finding of just cause was supported by substantial evidence. The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's administrative appeal, as there was substantial evidence in the record to support the defendant's factual findings and the termination of the plaintiff's employment from state service for just cause. Argued February 11—officially released August 26, 2025"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1395147/in-re-mutual-fund-market-timing-litigation/","attorney":"Robert L. King (submitted), Korein Till-ery, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs Steve Dudley, Beth Dudley (Dkt. 07-1695), Dorothy Luettinger (Dkt. 07-2142), Robert Potter, Edna Grench, Dorothy Luettinger (Dkt. 07-2244)., George A. Zelcs (submitted), Korein Tillery, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs Robert Potter, Edna Grench, Dorothy Luettinger (Dkt. 07-2053)., Charles L. Joley (submitted), Donovan, Rose, Nester & Szewczyk, Belleville, IL, Rebecca R. Jackson (submitted), Bryan Cave (submitted), St. Louis, MO, for Defendants Putnam Investment Management, LLC and Putnam Investment Funds (Dkt. 07-1695)., Steven B. Feirson (submitted), Dechert, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant Pacific Life Insurance Company (Dkt. 07-2142)., Mark A. Perry (submitted), Gordon R. Broom (submitted), Edwardsville, IL, Kurt E. Reitz (submitted), Thompson Coburn (submitted), Belleville, IL, for Defendants Janus Capital Management LLC, Janus Investment Fund (Dkt. 07-2244 & Dkt. 07-2053)., Richard K. Hunsaker (submitted), Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Edwardsville, IL, Mark A. Perry (submitted), Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, Washington, DC, for Defendants Deutsche Investment Management Americas, Inc., Scudder International Fund (Dkt. 07-2244 & 07-2053).","caseName":"In Re Mutual Fund Market-Timing Litigation","caseNameFull":"In the Matter Of: Mutual Fund Market-Timing Litigation","citation":["495 F.3d 366","2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16763","2007 WL 2012390"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":1395147,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"7th Cir.","court_id":"ca7","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-07-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"07-1695, 07-2053, 07-2142, 07-2244","docket_id":940781,"judge":"Easterbrook, Kanne, Wood","lexisCite":"2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16763","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T03:38:27.953606Z","date_created":"2015-09-24T21:03:46.860792Z","score":{"bm25":32.33126}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109639,145645,145671,145713,673885,765787,790080,795962,1446466,2312505,2335192],"download_url":null,"id":1395147,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T07:56:31.580917Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:56:58.308432Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3476c83ef0d3b8f608581f6c638dfdd9288c1d2c","snippet":"\n495 F.3d 366 (2007)\nIN THE MATTER OF MUTUAL FUND MARKET-TIMING LITIGATION.\nNos. 07-1695, 07-2053, 07-2142, 07-2244.\nUnited States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.\nSubmitted July 2, 2007.\nDecided July 13, 2007.\n*367 Robert L. King (submitted), Korein Tillery, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs Steve Dudley, Beth Dudley (Dkt.","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[960,1700],"panel_names":["Frank Hoover Easterbrook","Michael Stephen Kanne"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1395147],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4609610/cummins-v-unemployment-comp-bd-of-review/","attorney":"\n Shannon K. Cummins, pro se.\n , \n Paul R. Jordan, Assistant Counsel, Harrisburg, for respondent.\n ","caseName":"Cummins v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review","caseNameFull":"Shannon CUMMINS, Petitioner v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent","citation":["207 A.3d 990"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4609610,"court":"Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa. Commw. Ct.","court_id":"pacommwct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-04-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1944 C.D. 2017; 1945 C.D. 2017","docket_id":14925166,"judge":"Leavitt, Covey, Wojcik","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:33:35.203931Z","date_created":"2019-04-12T13:40:28.232174Z","score":{"bm25":32.30162}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8210,"cites":[1933017,1997165,2060782,2176519],"download_url":"http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1944CD17_4-12-19.pdf","id":4386863,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/04/12/s._cummins_v._ucbr.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:16:53.877888Z","date_created":"2019-04-12T13:40:28.248043Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2c77663fc989d4f06f7976eca1e3829bc1669831","snippet":"\n\n\n OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT\n \n\n These consolidated appeals concern Shannon Cummins' (Claimant) claim for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).\n \n 1\n \n At Docket No. 1944 C.D. 2017, Claimant petitions for this Court's review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's (Board) adjudication ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4386863],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}