{"count":6664,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xNi40MDc3MTkmcz00NjUwMDI0JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMTAtMDcmcD0y&q=SUBJECT+MATTER+OF+BAILMENT+BAILMENTS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9880417/matter-of-cayuga-nation-v-peenstra/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Cayuga Nation v. Peenstra","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 03258"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9880417,"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":"2024-06-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"210 CA 23-00747","docket_id":68887823,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-27T03:48:42.566473Z","date_created":"2024-06-26T17:15:59.185474Z","score":{"bm25":42.13229}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[4178390,4541229,5490859,5535810,6039088,9380300],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_03258.htm","id":10347027,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/06/14/matter_of_cayuga_nation_v._peenstra.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T21:00:04.053118Z","date_created":"2024-06-26T17:15:59.194360Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3055afe24428d867fd277edf68eecf347d282d2f","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Cayuga Nation v Peenstra (2024 NY Slip Op 03258)\n\n\n\n\n\nMatter of Cayuga Nation v Peenstra\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 03258\n\n\nDecided on June 14, 2024\n\n\nAppellate Division, Fourth Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10347027],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4248810/matter-of-courant/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Courant","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4248810,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-08-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2014-02016","docket_id":4121347,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T23:49:51.959886Z","date_created":"2016-08-17T23:25:39.502749Z","score":{"bm25":39.823006}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3594667,5485634,5536915,5751093,5874238,5897881,6009571],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_05811.htm","id":4026071,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2016/08/17/matter_of_courant.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T13:08:39.256320Z","date_created":"2016-08-17T23:25:39.512621Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"aa521cd02678f8194381ee30e63defe666f64df7","snippet":"\r\n\r\nMatter of Courant (2016 NY Slip Op 05811)\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nMatter of Courant\r\n\r\n\r\n2016 NY Slip Op 05811\r\n\r\n\r\nDecided on August 17, 2016\r\n\r\n\r\nAppellate Division, Second Department\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary L","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4026071],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4389728/matter-of-dlb/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of D.L.B.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2017 MT 106","387 Mont. 323","2017 Mont. LEXIS 293","394 P.3d 169","2017 WL 1833449"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4389728,"court":"Montana Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Mont.","court_id":"mont","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-05-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"16-0281","docket_id":6059694,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:31:05.169903Z","date_created":"2017-05-08T23:12:38.185114Z","score":{"bm25":31.358044}},"neutralCite":"2017 MT 106","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[877623,878714,879981,885195,887263,887911,888049,889631,890354,1357047,2605437,2755370,3160908,3542025,4017210,4112998],"download_url":"http://searchcourts.mt.gov/getDocument?vid={1026EA5B-0000-C310-B499-F5ECCEBA9BAA}","id":4166981,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/05/08/matter_of_d.l.b..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:44:09.854409Z","date_created":"2017-05-08T23:12:38.193897Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"68685b9bf598e81bddd734c273a78474c2ddad35","snippet":"                                                                                     05/08/2017\n\n\n                                   DA 16-0281\n                                                                                 Case Number: DA 16-0281\n\n\n          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA\n                                  2017 MT 106\n\n\n\nIN THE MATTER OF:\n\nD.L.B.,\n\n           Respondent and Appellant.\n\n\n\nAPPEAL FROM:      District Court of the Tenth Judicial District,\n            ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4166981],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Direct Appeal","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9404222/state-v-storm/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Storm","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9404222,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-685","docket_id":67478180,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:07:32.689348Z","date_created":"2023-06-06T12:05:48.139271Z","score":{"bm25":23.852448}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[93707,145913,1205566,1338030,1391793,2502859,3656772,3675213,3676552,6240817],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=42198","id":9399698,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/06/06/state_v._storm.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:24:22.974863Z","date_created":"2023-06-06T12:05:48.140390Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8a29f3b92129f4a0283f1d8e065851086f5bfdf8","snippet":"              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                   No. COA22-685\n\n                                 Filed 06 June 2023\n\nGuilford County, No. 21 CRS 028347\n\nSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n             v.\n\nKURT ANTHONY STORM, Defendant.\n\n\n      Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 17 February 2022 by Judge Lora\n\nChristine Cubbage in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals\n\n7 March 2023.\n\n\n      Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assist","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9399698],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Bailment, Conversion, and Fungible Assets"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5304249/harris-v-ohio-dept-of-rehab-corr/","attorney":"","caseName":"Harris v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2021 Ohio 4281"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":5304249,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-12-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21AP-326","docket_id":61601704,"judge":"Jamison","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:37:17.875839Z","date_created":"2021-12-08T15:13:47.774549Z","score":{"bm25":22.32222}},"neutralCite":"2021 Ohio 4281","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2021/2021-Ohio-4281.pdf","id":5132811,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/12/07/harris_v._ohio_dept._of_rehab.__corr..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T23:50:57.401721Z","date_created":"2021-12-08T15:13:47.784468Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2718507ca86f56424e3678e47f08b81c161cb6cb","snippet":"[Cite as Harris v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2021-Ohio-4281.]\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n\nMason Harris,                                          :\n\n                 Plaintiff-Appellant,                  :                  No. 21AP-326\n                                                                    (Ct. of Cl. No. 2020-00287AD)\nv.                                                     :\n          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5132811],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Appellant filed an appeal from an administrative determination. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.10(D), no further appeal may be taken from that judgment. Appeal dismissed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10623343/netflix-inc-v-department-of-revenue-of-the-state-of-colorado/","attorney":"","caseName":"Netflix, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of the State of Colorado","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 COA 64"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10623343,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24CA1019","docket_id":70707541,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-04T14:27:52.491783Z","date_created":"2025-07-04T13:04:09.711728Z","score":{"bm25":20.875437}},"neutralCite":"2025 COA 64","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1366722,1441087,1453454,2571596,2584209,2587133,2589909,2823819,3255240,4033214,4370373,4535063,4539741,9787035,9787433,9788826,10480615],"download_url":"https://colorado.vlex.io/pdf_viewer/1085687840","id":11089931,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/03/netflix_inc._v._department_of_revenue_of_the_state_of_colorado.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:13:03.248526Z","date_created":"2025-07-04T13:04:09.719608Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2b1a4e351542ece55d9b2a03e3d6c8692c9937d9","snippet":"     The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions\n  constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by\n  the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be\n    cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.\n  Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion\n           should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.\n\n\n                                                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11089931],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4533753/kennedy-v-specht/","attorney":"","caseName":"Kennedy v. Specht","caseNameFull":"Kathleen KENNEDY, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Harold E. SPECHT, Jr., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.","citation":["2018 Ohio 3629","119 N.E.3d 792"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4533753,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-09-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"NO. 2017-A-0079","docket_id":7831659,"judge":"Grendell","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:11:41.283117Z","date_created":"2018-09-10T18:37:36.614112Z","score":{"bm25":20.234459}},"neutralCite":"2018 Ohio 3629","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8095,"cites":[109387,2691813,2707490,3758717],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2018/2018-Ohio-3629.pdf","id":4311006,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/09/10/kennedy_v._specht.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:24:12.670064Z","date_created":"2018-09-10T18:37:36.623540Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e3860a6d2205dc4dfaebafce98e6180c75091245","snippet":"\n\n\n  DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.\n \n\n  {¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants appeal the Judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing their Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The issue before this court is whether prosecuting attorneys are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for their role in the disposing of seized property after the concl","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4311006],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"CIVIL - conversion bailment failure to state a claim dismissal Civ.R. 12(B)(6) prosecutorial immunity R.C. 2744.03(A)(7) common law investigative/administrative functions"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4682062/woods-v-tye/","attorney":"","caseName":"Woods v. Tye","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2019 Ohio 4863"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4682062,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-11-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"18AP-278","docket_id":16519176,"judge":"Brunner","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:54:31.145063Z","date_created":"2019-11-26T21:10:15.475574Z","score":{"bm25":19.147627}},"neutralCite":"2019 Ohio 4863","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1430140,2707178,3215382,3685207,3688079,3693244,3723793,3724042,3725498,3733080,3736273,3737199,3757833,3761737,3779368,6753713,6755285,6757282,6760227,6760564,11152889],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2019/2019-Ohio-4863.pdf","id":4459315,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/11/26/woods_v._tye.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T08:54:26.471491Z","date_created":"2019-11-26T21:10:15.497848Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b9fd50f82871c7a2fb34c1a819ff3dd2fb5c43ec","snippet":"[Cite as Woods v. Tye, 2019-Ohio-4863.]\n\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nGary F. Woods, et al.,                          :\n\n                Plaintiffs-Appellees,           :\n                                                                  No. 18AP-278\nv.                                              :              (C.P.C. No. 15CV-6197)\n\nDavid S. Tye, et al.,                           :            (REGULAR","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4459315],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Evidence supported the trial court's finding that the parties entered into an oral agreement and breached the bailment contract. Judgment affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10377069/wolfe-v-ohio-dept-of-rehab-corr/","attorney":"","caseName":"Wolfe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 1250"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10377069,"court":"Ohio Court of Claims","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. Cl.","court_id":"ohioctcl","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2024-00499JD","docket_id":69880287,"judge":"Sadler","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-04-11T19:51:05.061954Z","date_created":"2025-04-11T19:51:05.008938Z","score":{"bm25":19.110634}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 1250","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3694787,4315227,4417176,4519844,6497054,6758605,6766053,6773631,9948044,10762120,10795758],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/13/2025/2025-Ohio-1250.pdf","id":10843657,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/07/wolfe_v._ohio_dept._of_rehab.__corr..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-03T21:32:56.801295Z","date_created":"2025-04-11T19:51:05.022642Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"86d82250b29601c706a398b8d00e91edb747a4a2","snippet":"[Cite as Wolfe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-1250.]\n\n\n\n\n                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO\n\n\n\n JAVELEN L. WOLFE                                       Case No. 2024-00499JD\n\n         Plaintiff                                      Judge Lisa L. Sadler\n                                                        Magistrate Amber G. Damiani\n         v.\n                                                        DECISION\n OHIO DEPARTMENT OF\n REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10843657],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; discretionary immunity. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims relating to defendant's decision to replace inmate JPay tablets with ViaPath tablets while plaintiff was in the custody and control of defendant because defendant's decision was based on prison safety and administration considerations and was an executive function that involved a high degree of official discretion, and therefore, defendant was entitled to discretionary immunity. Judgment for defendant."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4343588/dennis-garner-v-gregory-stewart-kempf-and-vanderburgh-county-clerk/","attorney":"Attorney for Appellant: Curt J. An-germeier, Evansville, Indiana, Attorney for Appellees: Joseph H. Harrison, Jr., Evansville, Indiana","caseName":"Dennis Garner v. Gregory Stewart Kempf and Vanderburgh County Clerk","caseNameFull":"Dennis GARNER, Appellant-Defendant, v. Gregory Stewart KEMPF and Vanderburgh County Clerk, Appellee-Plaintiff","citation":["70 N.E.3d 408","2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 34","2017 WL 393393"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4343588,"court":"Indiana Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ind. Ct. App.","court_id":"indctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-01-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals Case 82A01-1512-PL-2362","docket_id":4576539,"judge":"Altice, Bradford, Pyle","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-27T18:51:57.503565Z","date_created":"2017-01-30T16:07:10.326917Z","score":{"bm25":17.691381}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9871672,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:12:03.575860Z","date_created":"2023-09-26T20:39:39.464274Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nAltice, Judge.\nCase Summary\nDennis Garner appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for proceedings supplemental.\nWe reverse and remand with instructions.1\nFacts & Procedural History\nIn 2013, the Vanderburgh Superior Court awarded Garner a civil judgment against Gregory Kempf in the amount of $20,600","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[852914,2015624,2026281,2035867,2036829,2103860,2147544,2230560,2236059],"download_url":"http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01301701rra.pdf","id":4120849,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/01/30/dennis_garner_v._gregory_stewart_kempf_and_vanderburgh_county_clerk.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:12:53.350774Z","date_created":"2017-01-30T16:07:10.331832Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"22251188562f45c71f4615ce210c4c5c46f9dcab","snippet":"                                                                                        FILED\n                                                                                Jan 30 2017, 8:26 am\n\n                                                                                        CLERK\n                                                                                    Indiana Supreme Court\n                                                                                       Court of Appeals\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4120849,9871672,9871674],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4392454/philipp-v-federal-republic-of-germany/","attorney":"Nicholas M. O’Donnell, Sullivan & Worcester L.L.P., Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs., Jonathan M. Freiman, Benjamin M. Daniels, Pro Hac Vice, David Roth, Pro Hac Vice, Tahlia Townsend, Pro Hac Vice, Wiggin & Dana L.L.P., New Haven, CT, David L. Hall, Pro Hac Vice, Wiggin and Dana L.L.P., Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.","caseName":"Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany","caseNameFull":"Alan PHILIPP, Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, Et Al., Defendants","citation":["253 F. Supp. 3d 84","2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75695"],"citeCount":15,"cluster_id":4392454,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-05-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2015-0266","docket_id":6063408,"judge":"Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly","lexisCite":"2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75695","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:31:48.982017Z","date_created":"2017-05-18T20:04:26.822445Z","score":{"bm25":17.69034}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[102720,118115,118215,186247,434884,699521,2310004,2515838],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv0266-34","id":4169707,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/05/18/philipp_v._federal_republic_of_germany.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:46:10.252231Z","date_created":"2017-05-18T20:04:26.839584Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"24ac05c94a940306d053321c4b3e5c04b120f48d","snippet":"\n\n\n  MEMORANDUM OPINION\n \n\n  COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge\n \n\n  Plaintiffs, who are the legal successors of the estates of three art dealer firms in Frankfurt, Germany, filed suit against Defendants the Federal Republic of Germany (“Germany”) and Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (“SPK”), an instrumentality of Germany, alleging that the SPK is in wron","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4169707],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4576121/dick-sears-v-indiana-grain-buyers-and-warehouse-licensing-agency/","attorney":"[1] Between 2009 and 2016, Dick Sears (Sears), an Indiana farmer, deposited corn and soybeans with a grain elevator, Cline Grain, Inc. (Cline), which was licensed with the Indiana Grain Buyers and Warehouse Licensing Agency (the IGBWLA). On April 8, 2016, Cline financially failed, and the IGBWLA took possession of Cline for the purpose of determining payment owed to depositors, including Sears. The IGBWLA determined that pursuant to Ind. Code § 26-3-7-2(5), which defines \"claimant\" under the relevant grain warehousing licensing law, Sears was entitled to payment for grain delivered to Cline in the twelve-month period prior to the elevator's failure, but he did not qualify as a \"claimant\" for grain delivered more than twelve months prior to the failure. The IGBWLA, thus, denied Sears's claim for grain delivered before April 8, 2015., [2] Sears administratively appealed, and an ALJ affirmed the IGBWLA's decision. Sears appealed again, and the Ultimate Authority designated by the IGBWLA adopted the findings and order of the ALJ, but with an adjustment based on a statute enacted after the ALJ's decision, I.C. § 26-3-7-37. Based on that statute, the Ultimate Authority found that Sears was entitled to payment for grain delivered after October 8, 2014, but not for grain delivered before that date. Sears filed a petition for judicial review, and the trial court denied relief. Sears filed the current appeal, raising the following restated issue:","caseName":"Dick Sears v. Indiana Grain Buyers and Warehouse Licensing Agency","caseNameFull":"Dick SEARS, Appellant-Petitioner, v. INDIANA GRAIN BUYERS AND WAREHOUSE LICENSING AGENCY, Appellee-Respondent.","citation":["117 N.E.3d 588"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4576121,"court":"Indiana Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ind. Ct. App.","court_id":"indctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-12-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals Case 18A-MI-883","docket_id":8446405,"judge":"Robb","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:24:03.644194Z","date_created":"2018-12-21T16:07:04.705552Z","score":{"bm25":17.451885}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9887790,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:59:55.721182Z","date_created":"2023-10-06T18:22:19.721072Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nWhether the trial court properly determined that the IGBWLA's interpretation of the term \"claimant,\" defined in I.C. § 26-3-7-2(5), was not arbitrary or capricious.\n[3] We affirm.\nFacts & Procedural History1\n[4] Before we address the facts and history specific to Sears's case, we find that a brief overview of the grain warehousing licensing l","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[2141152],"download_url":"http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/12211801rra.pdf","id":4353374,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/12/21/dick_sears_v._indiana_grain_buyers_and_warehouse_licensing_agency.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:53:51.162742Z","date_created":"2018-12-21T16:07:04.710151Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2956b20c0bde46413c726d02c61b704364a8f95b","snippet":"                                                                                 FILED\n                                                                             Dec 21 2018, 8:46 am\n\n                                                                                 CLERK\n                                                                             Indiana Supreme Court\n                                                                                Court of Appeals\n                               ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9887790,9887791,4353374],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9431118/sparks-v-ohio-dept-of-rehab-corr/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sparks v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 Ohio 3164"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9431118,"court":"Ohio Court of Claims","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. Cl.","court_id":"ohioctcl","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-08-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2023-00167AD","docket_id":67860462,"judge":"Shaver","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:14:32.338739Z","date_created":"2023-10-05T22:22:42.952992Z","score":{"bm25":17.354107}},"neutralCite":"2023 Ohio 3164","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2691540,3706128,3721024,3724494,3769023,3772676,4542958,6751894],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/13/2023/2023-Ohio-3164.pdf","id":9882975,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/08/02/sparks_v._ohio_dept._of_rehab.__corr..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T22:58:05.733876Z","date_created":"2023-10-05T22:22:42.961942Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ee1f0f210b25c1d75b761125f3502ff42e65c021","snippet":"[Cite as Sparks v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-3164.]\n\n\n                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO\n\n\n                                                        Case No. 2023-00167AD\n BRYAN SPARKS\n                                                        Deputy Clerk Holly True Shaver\n         Plaintiff\n                                                        MEMORANDUM DECISION\n         v.\n\n OHIO DEPARTMENT OF\n REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION\n\n         Defendant\n\n\n\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9882975],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Inmate property loss. Negligence. Duty of care. Burden of proof. Value of property. Damages. Contraband. Proof of ownership. Judgment for plaintiff."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10281716/ototronix-llc-v-integer-holdings-corp-as-successor-in-interest-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Ototronix, LLC v. Integer Holdings Corp., as Successor in Interest of Greatbatch Ltd. and Affiliates","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10281716,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Beaumont","court_id":"txctapp9","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-11-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"09-22-00206-CV","docket_id":69404122,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:20:07.712714Z","date_created":"2024-11-22T09:14:31.218603Z","score":{"bm25":17.331778}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1505910,1789107,1881199],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=18504&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa09%5cOpinion","id":10748304,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/11/21/ototronix_llc_v._integer_holdings_corp._as_successor_in_interest_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:20:07.702289Z","date_created":"2024-11-22T09:14:31.253883Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5dab735a9b4da838f868580a219cf350245fa201","snippet":"                                      In The\n\n                                Court of Appeals\n\n                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont\n\n                              __________________\n\n                              NO. 09-22-00206-CV\n                              __________________\n\n                        OTOTRONIX, LLC, Appellant\n\n                                         V.\n\n  INTEGER HOLDINGS CORP., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF\n        GREATBATCH LTD. AND AFFILIATES, Appellee","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10748304],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9430138/gregg-v-lan-zhen-chen/","attorney":"","caseName":"Gregg v. Lan Zhen Chen","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 NY Slip Op 04993"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9430138,"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":"2023-10-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 100052/19","docket_id":67855112,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-21T17:51:14.166854Z","date_created":"2023-10-04T19:28:53.519272Z","score":{"bm25":17.0571}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2117236,4230659,5121492,5121522,5536324,5539503,5975305,6323998,7083281],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_04993.htm","id":9881995,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/10/04/gregg_v._lan_zhen_chen.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T03:18:02.911919Z","date_created":"2023-10-04T19:28:53.527017Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c261fc8696a7b5ccfff4b9cfaf0bdaf0f544b116","snippet":"\n\nGregg v Lan Zhen Chen (2023 NY Slip Op 04993)\n\n\n\n\n\nGregg v Lan Zhen Chen\n\n\n2023 NY Slip Op 04993\n\n\nDecided on October 4, 2023\n\n\nAppellate Division, Second Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9881995],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5344805/foster-v-board-of-governors-ex-rel-colorado-state-university/","attorney":"Larimer County District Court No. 12CV 1374, Honorable Daniel J. Kaup, Judge, Erik G. Fischer, P.C., Erik G. Fischer, Gordon M. Hadfield, Fort Collins, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee, John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Russell E. Yates, Special Assistant Attorney General, Dart M. Winkler, Special Assistant Attorney General, Matthew S. Mersfelder, Special Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant","caseName":"Foster v. Board of Governors ex rel. Colorado State University","caseNameFull":"Heather FOSTER v. The BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, BY AND ON BEHALF OF COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY","citation":["342 P.3d 497","2014 COA 18","2014 WL 784854","2014 Colo. App. LEXIS 310"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":5344805,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-02-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals No. 13CA0280","docket_id":61692476,"judge":"Fox, Jones, Navarro","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:47:40.939118Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:11:17.061302Z","score":{"bm25":16.871634}},"neutralCite":"2014 COA 18","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5177579,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:22:28.441337Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:11:17.079707Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOpinion by\nJUDGE J. JONES\n{ 1 This case arises from a fire at Colorado State University's Equine Reproduction Laboratory (the Lab) that destroyed plaintiff Heather Foster's property. Defendant, the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System (CSU),1 appeals the district court's order denying its motion to dismiss Ms. Foster's claim for breach of an oral bailment contract b","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5177579],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1928196/matter-of-ripley-oil-co-inc/","attorney":"Richard D. Nelson, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Trustee., David J. Frey, Batavia, Ohio, for creditor.","caseName":"Matter of Ripley Oil Co., Inc.","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of RIPLEY OIL COMPANY, INC., Debtor","citation":["71 B.R. 631","3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1126","1987 Bankr. LEXIS 388"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":1928196,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio","court_citation_string":"Bankr. S.D. Ohio","court_id":"ohsb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1987-03-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Bankruptcy 1-83-02996","docket_id":1718977,"judge":"Randall J. Newsome","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T07:27:30.816132Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T18:56:29.316603Z","score":{"bm25":16.551447}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[231239,1449275,1975356,1994452,3747289],"download_url":null,"id":1928196,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T14:13:11.262185Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T07:50:37.922192Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"90304166e01dd43c89d538cb8654eef65384cb92","snippet":"\n71 B.R. 631 (1987)\nIn the Matter of RIPLEY OIL COMPANY, INC., Debtor.\nBankruptcy No. 1-83-02996.\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.\nMarch 20, 1987.\nRichard D. Nelson, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Trustee.\nDavid J. Frey, Batavia, Ohio, for creditor.\n\nORDER\nRANDALL J. NEWSOME, Bankruptcy Judge.\nThis Chapter 7 case is before th","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1928196],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7336067/indem-ins-co-of-n-am-v-expeditors-intl-of-wash-inc/","attorney":"*305Michael Evan Stern, Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, L.L.P., New York, NY, for Plaintiff., Steven William Block, Foster Pepper PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants.","caseName":"Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Expeditors Int'l of Wash., Inc.","caseNameFull":"INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA a/s/o GE Medical Systems Trade and Development (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON, INC., Expeditors Japan KK, and Nippon Cargo Airlines","citation":["382 F. Supp. 3d 302"],"citeCount":5,"cluster_id":7336067,"court":"District Court, S.D. Illinois","court_citation_string":"S.D. Ill.","court_id":"ilsd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-05-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"1:18-cv-7093-GHW","docket_id":64324554,"judge":"Woods","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:40:47.931588Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:25:00.774895Z","score":{"bm25":16.54885}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7253987,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:56:48.957995Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T06:25:00.783181Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nGREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:\nIndemnity Insurance Company of North America (\"Plaintiff\" or \"Indemnity\") filed this suit against Expeditors International *306of Washington, Inc. (\"EIW\") and Expeditors Japan KK (\"EXPJapan\" and collectively with EIW, \"Defendants\")1 seeking recovery for cargo damaged d","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7253987],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4722363/philipp-v-federal-republic-of-germany/","attorney":"","caseName":"Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4722363,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-01-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2015-0266","docket_id":16776584,"judge":"Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:07:03.026861Z","date_created":"2020-01-29T21:00:45.255978Z","score":{"bm25":16.445425}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[110932,145794,184503,186247,347649,450359,458541,4164892],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv0266-48","id":4502690,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/01/29/philipp_v._federal_republic_of_germany.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:37:13.068856Z","date_created":"2020-01-29T21:00:45.280813Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f9ea60f3ce1410b9278326514d4431bb09a21fb4","snippet":"                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n    ALAN PHILIPP, et al.,\n\n               Plaintiffs,\n          v.\n                                                            Civil Action No. 15-00266 (CKK)\n    FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY\n    AND STIFTUNG PREUSSISCHER\n    KULTURBESITZ,\n\n               Defendants.\n\n\n                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION\n                                       (January 29, 2020","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4502690],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4650024/business-aviation-llc-and-vaughn-c-zimmerman-v-director-of-revenue/","attorney":"","caseName":"Business Aviation, LLC and Vaughn C. Zimmerman v. Director of Revenue","caseNameFull":"BUSINESS AVIATION, LLC and Vaughn C. Zimmerman, Et Al., Appellants, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.","citation":["579 S.W.3d 212"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4650024,"court":"Supreme Court of Missouri","court_citation_string":"Mo.","court_id":"mo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-07-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC97475","docket_id":16082227,"judge":"Judge Mary R. Russell","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:45:48.415219Z","date_created":"2019-08-20T18:49:04.600814Z","score":{"bm25":16.407719}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":4944,"cites":[1512885,1630038,1746255,2291175,3536036],"download_url":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=142455","id":4427277,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/07/16/business_aviation_llc_and_vaughn_c._zimmerman_v._director_of_revenue.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:44:51.546985Z","date_created":"2019-08-20T18:49:04.609987Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8c36fca6267a35e2b0f0d8947e03760055a338d3","snippet":"\n\n\n  Mary R. Russell, Judge\n \n\n  Business Aviation LLC and its members (collectively, \"Appellants\")\n  \n   1\n  \n  appeal the Administrative Hearing Commission's (\"AHC\") decision assessing use tax, additions to tax, and interest against Appellants as a result of Business Aviation's purchase of an aircraft. The aircraft was purchased in Kansas and the","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4427277],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}