{"count":176335,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yOC42ODQ3MTcmcz0yNTgxMDQ4JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDktMjYmcD0y&q=VALIDITY+OF+DISCOVERY&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9408856/discovery-builders-v-city-of-oakland/","attorney":"","caseName":"Discovery Builders v. City of Oakland","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9408856,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-06-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A164315","docket_id":67521048,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:08:55.126593Z","date_created":"2023-06-22T19:04:12.112892Z","score":{"bm25":46.954853}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A164315.PDF","id":9404332,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/06/22/discovery_builders_v._city_of_oakland.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:55:14.624702Z","date_created":"2023-06-22T19:04:12.116625Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ca2e3ca1cbd4ddd221944fcefb5e4d2b2e23622b","snippet":"Filed 6/22/23\n                      CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION\n\n       IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                         FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n                            DIVISION THREE\n\n\n DISCOVERY BUILDERS, INC., et\n al.,\n         Plaintiffs and Respondents,         A164315\n\n v.                                          (Alameda County\n CITY OF OAKLAND et al.,                     Case No. RG20073110)\n         Defendants and Appellants.\n\n\n       In 2005, developers o","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9404332],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10690270/adler-v-discovery-harbour-community-association/","attorney":"","caseName":"Adler v. Discovery Harbour Community Association","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10690270,"court":"Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Haw. App.","court_id":"hawapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-10-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CAAP-23-0000186","docket_id":71541040,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-03T19:05:35.819048Z","date_created":"2025-10-03T19:05:35.016526Z","score":{"bm25":44.82169}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2582277,2588750,2600152,2613995,4269618,9633489,9784188,9786178,9798797,9806156],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/CAAP-23-0000186sdo.pdf","id":11156857,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/10/03/adler_v._discovery_harbour_community_association_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:34:37.760430Z","date_created":"2025-10-03T19:05:35.020859Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b9e1d4d8d6f5e039ea682a1e983f1661d47d0f27","snippet":" NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER\n\n\n\n\n                                                   Electronically Filed\n                                                   Intermediate Court of Appeals\n                                                   CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                                   03-OCT-2025\n                                                   07:47 AM\n                                                   Dkt. 107 SO\n\n\n                  ","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/CAAP-23-0000186sdo.pdf","id":11156846,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/10/03/adler_v._discovery_harbour_community_association.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T22:20:54.799088Z","date_created":"2025-10-03T18:05:54.141772Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6237030422ff05b14a81a85ae8827a85d139f2f1","snippet":" NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER\n\n\n\n\n                                                   Electronically Filed\n                                                   Intermediate Court of Appeals\n                                                   CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                                   03-OCT-2025\n                                                   07:47 AM\n                                                   Dkt. 107 SO\n\n\n                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11156857,11156846],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4431237/discovery-ins-co-v-the-nc-dept-of-ins/","attorney":"Graebe Hanna & Sullivan, PLLC, Raleigh, by Douglas W. Hanna, for petitioner-appellant., Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Daniel Snipes Johnson and Assistant Attorney General M. Denise Stanford, for respondent-appellee North Carolina Department of Insurance and the Commissioner of Insurance., Young Moore and Henderson, P.A., Raleigh, by Marvin M. Spivey, Jr., Glenn C. Raynor and Angela Farag Craddock, for respondent-appellee North Carolina Reinsurance Facility.","caseName":"Discovery Ins. Co. v. The NC Dep't of Ins.","caseNameFull":"DISCOVERY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. the NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, Commissioner of Insurance Wayne Goodwin and the North Carolina Reinsurance Facility, Respondents.","citation":["807 S.E.2d 582","255 N.C. App. 696"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4431237,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-10-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"COA17-285","docket_id":6162513,"judge":"Tyson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-12-13T14:34:56.534239Z","date_created":"2017-10-03T12:10:09.750661Z","score":{"bm25":37.009125}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1201978,1212909,1227268,1234619,1249965,1296236,1300276,1310234,1314933,1328050,1328496,1335442,1336416,1342680,1381311,1385432,1413189,1418897,3648392],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=35860","id":4208490,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/10/03/discovery_ins._co._v._the_nc_dept_of_ins.â.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:12:46.252713Z","date_created":"2017-10-03T12:10:09.756982Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"babe5533ff7e839becec88df4338af3d8e5c6fa5","snippet":"\n\n\n  TYSON, Judge.\n \n\n\n   *697\n  \n\n   I. Background\n  \n\n\n  Respondent, the North Carolina Reinsurance Facility (\"the Facility\"), is a statutory entity, consisting of all motor vehicle liability insurers in\n  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4208490],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Risk of loss for fraud by employee statutory authority of reinsurance facility fidelity losses arising out of claims handling standard of review of Commissioner's decision equitable estoppel and defenses pre-hearing discovery, NCGS 58-37-65"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9448561/global-discovery-biosciences-corporation-v-douglas-s-harrington/","attorney":"","caseName":"Global Discovery Biosciences Corporation v. Douglas S. Harrington","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9448561,"court":"Court of Chancery of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del. Ch.","court_id":"delch","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-12-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CA No. 2022-1132-SG","docket_id":67701997,"judge":"Glasscock, V.C.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:19:05.214822Z","date_created":"2023-12-01T21:02:40.026987Z","score":{"bm25":36.428528}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108114,110736,111437,177726,1476576,1903423,2068009,2209546,2279777,2307736,2317057,2339331,2377604,2406972,4029355,4174337],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=356210","id":9906386,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/12/01/global_discovery_biosciences_corporation_v._douglas_s._harrington.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:07:49.096699Z","date_created":"2023-12-01T21:02:40.033959Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7c37c096bfb27a98bda6e9557021812045973cad","snippet":"   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\nGLOBAL DISCOVERY                         )\nBIOSCIENCES CORPORATION                  )\n                                         )\n                 Plaintiff,              )\n                                         )\n      v.                                 ) C.A. No. 2022-1132-SG\n                                         )\nDOUGLAS S. HARRINGTON, THE               )\nARK PARTNER LLC, SMART                   )\nHEALTH DIAGNOSTICS COMPANY           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9906386],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5148499/discovery-charter-school-v-school-district-of-philadelphia/","attorney":"Kevin M. McKenna, Exton, for petitioner., Paul J. Cianci, Huntingdon Valley, for respondents.","caseName":"Discovery Charter School v. School District of Philadelphia","caseNameFull":"DISCOVERY CHARTER SCHOOL v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA and School Reform Commission","citation":["111 A.3d 248","2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 94"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5148499,"court":"Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania","court_citation_string":"Pa. Commw. Ct.","court_id":"pacommwct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-03-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":60462440,"judge":"Colins, Jubelirer, Leavitt, Simpson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:55:49.292392Z","date_created":"2021-09-24T16:54:29.772136Z","score":{"bm25":36.398243}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4969580,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T22:18:46.532505Z","date_created":"2021-09-24T16:54:29.784581Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION BY\nSenior Judge JAMES GARDNER COLINS.\nThis matter is a petition for review filed by Discovery Charter School (Discovery) appealing an order of the State Charter School Appeal Board (Board) that dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Discovery’s appeal from the refusal of the School Reform Commission (SRC)1 and the School District of Philadelphia (collectively, School District)","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4969580],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10879588/manfred-nare-v-omaha-discovery-trust/","attorney":"","caseName":"Manfred Nare v. Omaha Discovery Trust","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10879588,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","court_citation_string":"8th Cir.","court_id":"ca8","court_jurisdiction":"F","dateArgued":"2026-05-13","dateFiled":"2026-06-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"25-3175","docket_id":73338832,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-06-24T16:09:09.619932Z","date_created":"2026-06-24T16:09:09.155363Z","score":{"bm25":35.886906}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109067,109385,174536,182637,765583,767303,786847,2815242,4518659,6322916,9423804,9433913,9434091,9515888],"download_url":"https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/06/253175P.pdf","id":11347107,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/06/24/manfred_nare_v._omaha_discovery_trust.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-06-24T17:37:11.244429Z","date_created":"2026-06-24T16:09:09.164556Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8cc3ff82e6bbef33e5e97b8274591f33f28b97be","snippet":"                  United States Court of Appeals\n                             For the Eighth Circuit\n                         ___________________________\n\n                                 No. 25-3175\n                         ___________________________\n\n Manfred L.S. Nare, Individually, as Parents, Natural Guardians and Next Friends\n   of M.N., a minor child; Gwladys K. Nare, Individually, as Parents, Natural\n              Guardians and Next Friends of M.N., a minor child\n\n                      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11347107],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4239272/city-of-dunwoody-v-discovery-practice-management-inc-et-al/","attorney":"Riley McLendon, Cecil G. McLendon, Jr., Leonid M. Felgin, for appellant., Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante Littlefield, Joshua B. Belinfante, Vincent R. Russo, Jr., for appellees.","caseName":"CITY OF DUNWOODY v. DISCOVERY PRACTICE MANAGEMENT, INC. Et Al.","caseNameFull":"City of Dunwoody, Georgia v. Discovery Practice Management, Inc. D/B/A Center for Discovery","citation":["338 Ga. App. 135","789 S.E.2d 386","2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 441"],"citeCount":13,"cluster_id":4239272,"court":"Court of Appeals of Georgia","court_citation_string":"Ga. Ct. App.","court_id":"gactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-07-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A16A0058","docket_id":4111572,"judge":"Rickman, Barnes, Boggs","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T23:47:02.229681Z","date_created":"2016-07-18T07:06:21.033836Z","score":{"bm25":35.56407}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1212774,1255978,1329196,1347586,5600885],"download_url":"https://efast.gaappeals.us/download?filingId=cc9397d0-65a1-4448-9835-41154e5cb006","id":4016533,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/07/18/city_of_dunwoody_georgia_v._discovery_practice_management_inc._dba.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T13:02:07.639837Z","date_created":"2016-07-18T07:06:21.040050Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dbdd4a7859ccde9faf66f6c9c0d21a771b354829","snippet":"\n\n\n  Rickman, Judge.\n \n\n  This Court granted a discretionary appeal application by the City of Dunwoody (the “City”) from the judgment of the DeKalb County Superior Court reversing the decision of the City of Dun-woody Zoning Board of Appeals (the “ZBA”) in a dispute regarding whether the proposed use of property controlled by Discovery Practice Management, Inc., d/b/a Center For Discovery ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4016533],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7331942/hitachi-data-sys-credit-corp-v-precision-discovery-inc/","attorney":"*136John Armando Boudet, Gray Robinson P.A., Orlando, FL, Richard Paul Kaye, Anthony Galano, III, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff., Douglas Holden Wigdor, Lawrence Michael Pearson, Kenneth Daniel Walsh, Renan F. Varghese, Wigdor LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant., The following facts are drawn from Precision's amended counterclaims and third-party complaint (ECF Doc. 56). The Court assumes the truth of the factual allegations in that document for purposes of these motions to dismiss. The Court also relies on the contract at issue, which was attached to HDSCC's original complaint and is integral to Precision's counterclaims and third-party claims. See Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 834 F.3d 220, 230-31 (2d Cir. 2016)., Around January 2012, HDSCC and Precision entered into a lease agreement defining the terms under which Precision would lease equipment from HDSCC to be identified in attached schedules. (Def.'s Am. Answer, Counterclaims, and Am. Third-Party Compl. (\"Am. Third-Party Compl.\"), ECF Doc. 56, ¶¶ 34-35.) These schedules were negotiated \"from time to time\" beginning in January 2012. (Id. ) All appeared to be well with the arrangement for approximately the next five years. However, in November 2016 an email from a Hitachi Vantara employee made clear that Schedule J, which had been signed by Precision and HDSCC two months earlier, in September 2016, posed serious problems for Precision. (Id. ¶¶ 81, 107-108.), Through the terms of Schedule J, Precision had, according to it, agreed to lease from HDSCC only outdated equipment that could not support Precision's data storage needs, and had further agreed to return all of the other equipment it had previously leased from HDSCC under other schedules, or else pay an additional fee to keep it. (Id. ¶¶ 67-68, 77-81, 86-87, 89, 107-108.) As a result, in order to continue running its business, Precision would need *138to pay significant rent for outdated equipment inadequate for its needs, as well as additional fees in order to keep using the acceptable equipment it had been using previously. (Id. ¶¶ 86-88, 107-108.) Precision states that it subsequently discovered that Howard Holton, Precision's Chief Information Officer, had been engaged in what Precision calls an \"improper arrangement\" with the third-party defendants in this case. (Id. ¶ 44.), Third-party defendant Hitachi Vantara Corporation is the hardware and software company whose products were leased to Precision under the schedules. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 37.) (HDSCC, the lessor in the contract at issue, was the finance company that Hitachi Vantara utilized for lease transactions. (Id. ¶ 34.) ) Third-party defendant Cold Creek Solutions, Inc. is an authorized equipment reseller for Hitachi Vantara. (Id. ¶ 23.) According to Precision, both Hitachi Vantara and Cold Creek were closely involved in the negotiation of Schedule J, despite the fact that only lessor HDSCC and lessee Precision are parties to Schedule J and the original lease agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 34-38.), Precision's Chief Information Officer Howard Holton was a negotiator and signatory of Schedule J for Precision. (Id. ¶¶ 44, 58, 81.) Over the months prior to and immediately after the signing of Schedule J, Holton had several interactions with Cold Creek and Hitachi Vantara that Precision characterizes as demonstrating an improper and unethical relationship that created \"obvious, irreconcilable and irrevocable conflicts of interest[.]\" (Id. ¶¶ 44-65.) For instance, while Holton was employed by Precision, he was also secretly earning additional income as a consultant or contractor for Cold Creek. (Id. ¶¶ 46-47.) Without Precision's knowledge, Hitachi Vantara and Cold Creek also provided Holton with various expensive gifts allegedly including lavish meals, alcohol, and tickets to sports events. (Id. ¶¶ 52-56, 65.) Holton had a particularly close relationship with one Hitachi Vantara employee, Billy Metting, who allowed Holton to borrow his truck, eventually selling it to him. (Id. ¶¶ 58-63.), Precision alleges that Cold Creek and Hitachi Vantara, working with HDSCC, leveraged these improper interactions to induce Holton into executing Schedule J on Precision's behalf, all the while knowing that the equipment they were providing was unsuitable for Precision. (Id. ¶¶ 36-43, 64, 66-91.) Precision also alleges that a Cold Creek employee induced Holton to fraudulently sign an installation certificate claiming that the equipment had been installed, when in fact it had not been, in order for the Cold Creek and Hitachi Vantara sales teams to be able to receive their commissions. (Id. ¶¶ 92-106.), Based on the above facts, Precision asserts five causes of action against both plaintiff HDSCC and third-party defendants Hitachi Vantara and Cold Creek; two causes of action solely against *139HDSCC; and two causes of action solely against the third-party defendants. Against both HDSCC and the third parties, Precision asserts a claim of fraudulent inducement with regard to Schedule J; a claim of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding Schedule J; a civil RICO claim based on use of interstate mail and wires to defraud Precision; a civil conspiracy claim; and a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing. (Id. ¶¶ 115-151.) Against only HDSCC, Precision asserts a claim of conversion regarding the funds it paid to HDSCC pursuant to Schedule J before discovering it was fraudulent, and an unjust enrichment claim regarding those same funds. (Id. ¶ 152-167.) Against only Hitachi Vantara and Cold Creek, Precision asserts a claim of tortious interference with contract and business relations, arguing that Hitachi Vantara and Cold Creek caused Precision to breach the Schedule J agreement by fraudulently inducing Precision to execute it, and a claim of aiding and abetting HDSCC's conversion. (Id. ¶¶ 168-177.), As relief for these claims, Precision requests a declaration that Schedule J is unenforceable; an injunction barring HDSCC, Cold Creek, and Hitachi Vantara from seeking Schedule J's enforcement; and money damages. (Id. at 36-37.), HDSCC has now moved to dismiss all of Precision's claims against it for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and third-party defendants Hitachi Vantara and Cold Creek have also moved to dismiss all third-party claims against them. The third party-defendants move both for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and for lack of personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). This Court subsequently permitted Precision to file an amended version of its counterclaims and third-party complaint meant to respond to the personal jurisdiction arguments raised by Cold Creek and Hitachi Vantara, specifying that the pending motions to dismiss would remain in place. See Order dated Mar. 19, 2018, ECF Doc. 55., *140In order to defeat the third-party defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, Precision \"must make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists,\" which \"entails making legally sufficient allegations of jurisdiction, including an averment of facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish jurisdiction[.]\" Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of America Corp. , 883 F.3d 68, 81 (2d Cir. 2018) (alteration removed) (quoting Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha , 609 F.3d 30, 34-35 (2d Cir. 2010) ). \"On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the Court may look beyond the four corners of the complaint and consider all pleadings and accompanying affidavits and declarations, while still 'resolving all doubts in [the non-movant's] favor.' \" Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corp. v. Ringside, Inc. , 928 F.Supp.2d 735, 737 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing DiStefano v. Carozzi N. Am., Inc. , 286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2001) )., The third-party defendants each argue that they are not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York and that therefore the third-party complaints against them must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. More specifically, both Hitachi Vantara and Cold Creek argue that even assuming that the text of New York's long-arm statute might cover the third-party defendants, the federal Constitution's due process limitations do not permit this Court to exercise either general or specific personal jurisdiction over parties that have had the limited contact with the state of New York that they have had. Precision makes no serious argument to the contrary, almost entirely ignoring the third-party defendants' due process arguments. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that it does not have personal jurisdiction over either Hitachi Vantara or Cold Creek., Precision points out that New York's long-arm statute authorizes general jurisdiction rather broadly, permitting the exercise of such jurisdiction for a corporation that does business in New York \"not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence and continuity.\" See Sonera Holding B.V. v. Çukurova Holding A.S. , 750 F.3d 221, 224 n.2 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co. , 220 N.Y. 259, 267, 115 N.E. 915 (1917) ). However, Precision fails to recognize that in order for this Court to exercise general jurisdiction, two separate requirements must be met: \"1) state law must authorize general jurisdiction; and 2) jurisdiction must comport with constitutional due process principles.\" Reich v. Lopez , 858 F.3d 55, 62 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Second Circuit has recognized, it is entirely possible for the requirements of New York law to be satisfied, but for personal jurisdiction to nevertheless be absent due to constitutional requirements. See Sonera , 750 F.3d at 224-25 & n. 2 (\"There is no need to address the scope of general jurisdiction under New York law because the exercise of general jurisdiction over Çukurova is clearly inconsistent with Daimler .\").","caseName":"Hitachi Data Sys. Credit Corp. v. Precision Discovery, Inc.","caseNameFull":"HITACHI DATA SYSTEMS CREDIT CORPORATION v. PRECISION DISCOVERY, INC., a New York corporation f/k/a Precision Discovery, LLC","citation":["331 F. Supp. 3d 130"],"citeCount":17,"cluster_id":7331942,"court":"District Court, S.D. Illinois","court_citation_string":"S.D. Ill.","court_id":"ilsd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-09-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"17-CV-6851 (SHS)","docket_id":64320427,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:39:47.242483Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T05:55:34.439825Z","score":{"bm25":34.343697}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7249860,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T11:28:34.631916Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T05:55:34.450835Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nEven assuming that Precision is correct in its argument that the requirements of New York law are satisfied by the third-party defendants' business activities in New York, Precision has not made sufficient allegations to support the notion that an assertion of general jurisdiction here would comply with due process requirements post- Daimler . It is undisputed that neither Cold Creek nor Hitachi Vantara is incorporated in New York, and that neither","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7249860],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6473388/in-re-global-discovery-biosciences-corporation-a-delaware-corporation/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN RE Global Discovery Biosciences Corporation, a Delaware Corporation","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6473388,"court":"Court of Chancery of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del. Ch.","court_id":"delch","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-05-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C.A. No. 2021-0196-SG","docket_id":63348474,"judge":"Glasscock V.C.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:48:32.231880Z","date_created":"2022-05-31T18:01:53.055691Z","score":{"bm25":33.472153}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1497598,2084235,2282205,2321828,2357479,2399125,4966683],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=333470","id":6345499,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/05/31/in_re_global_discovery_biosciences_corporation_a_delaware_corporation.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T19:31:16.602910Z","date_created":"2022-05-31T18:01:53.062944Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"46f54e5c13c5cf1ce15bc8fc9b856201b7d8f17d","snippet":"   IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\n\nIN RE GLOBAL DISCOVERY                    )\nBIOSCIENCES CORPORATION,                  ) C.A. No. 2021-0196-SG\na Delaware Corporation.                   )\n\n\n                        MEMORANDUM OPINION\n\n                        Date Submitted: May 25, 2022\n                         Date Decided: May 31, 2022\n\n\nStephen C. Norman and David A. Seal, of POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON\nLLP, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Eric Landau and Travis Biffar, of","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6345499],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4843313/estate-of-welch-v-taylor/","attorney":"","caseName":"Estate of Welch v. Taylor","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 Ohio 6909"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4843313,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-12-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CA2020-03-004","docket_id":26029413,"judge":"Ringland","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:39:33.140682Z","date_created":"2020-12-28T16:12:56.944395Z","score":{"bm25":33.40106}},"neutralCite":"2020 Ohio 6909","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8129,"cites":[2701346,2705791,2707969,2760726,3690359,4310983,4329972],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/12/2020/2020-Ohio-6909.pdf","id":4647092,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/12/28/estate_of_welch_v._taylor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T19:26:11.328030Z","date_created":"2020-12-28T16:12:56.958980Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"342809a7c99cca28557233e39e40a1450c783df9","snippet":"[Cite as Estate of Welch v. Taylor, 2020-Ohio-6909.]\n\n\n\n                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO\n\n                                            CLINTON COUNTY\n\n\n\n\n ESTATE OF FRANCIS WELCH, et al.,                      :\n\n        Appellants,                                    :   CASE NO. CA2020-03-004\n\n                                                       :        OPINION\n     - vs -                               ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4647092],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The probate court erred by denying Plaintiffs request for discovery where the record reflects that the parties were not contesting the validity of the will, but rather are seeking to include assets allegedly withheld from the decedent's estate."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4387823/legoland-discovery-centre-dallas-llc-v-superior-builders-llc/","attorney":"Jason Richerson, Arlington, for Appel-lee., David F. Johnson, Fort Worth, Dale E. Butler, Flower Mound, for Appellant.","caseName":"Legoland Discovery Centre (Dallas), LLC v. Superior Builders, LLC","caseNameFull":"LEGOLAND DISCOVERY CENTRE (DALLAS), LLC, Appellant v. SUPERIOR BUILDERS, LLC, Appellee","citation":["531 S.W.3d 218"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":4387823,"court":"Court of Appeals of Texas","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.","court_id":"texapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-04-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"NO. 02-16-00425-CV","docket_id":6057210,"judge":"Livingston, Gabriel, Pittman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:30:31.260237Z","date_created":"2017-05-02T09:19:49.207371Z","score":{"bm25":32.894318}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[65385,564813,894511,894709,894764,894995,1376296,1450411,1652404,1657614,2342297],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=34530&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa02%5cOpinion","id":4165076,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/04/27/legoland_discovery_centre_dallas_llc_v._superior_builders_llc_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:42:48.264416Z","date_created":"2017-05-02T09:19:49.214752Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7c84174b6eb915798c88e3ef5f206ebbd106ec0d","snippet":"\n\n\n  OPINION\n \n\n  LEE GABRIEL, JUSTICE\n \n\n  Appellant Legoland Discovery Centre (Dallas), LLC appeals from the trial court’s interlocutory order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Because appel-lee Superior Builders, LLC did riot meet its heavy burden to show that Legoland waived its right to arbitrate by substantially invoking the judicial process as to Superio","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4165076],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5093138/south-point-investment-group-llc-v-discovery-harbour-community/","attorney":"","caseName":"South Point Investment Group, LLC v. Discovery Harbour Community Association","caseNameFull":"","citation":["149 Haw. 425","494 P.3d 742"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5093138,"court":"Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Haw. App.","court_id":"hawapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-09-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CAAP-19-0000333","docket_id":60380338,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:12:29.537508Z","date_created":"2021-09-13T19:08:15.898829Z","score":{"bm25":32.835968}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1186167,1230209],"download_url":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/CAAP-19-0000333sdo.pdf","id":4910523,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/09/13/south_point_investment_group_llc_v._discovery_harbour_community.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:12:29.580403Z","date_created":"2021-09-13T19:08:15.900757Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"888ad2f56d41f66f957dc580a3ce9b28ca69ce15","snippet":"  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER\n\n\n\n\n                                                  Electronically Filed\n                                                  Intermediate Court of Appeals\n                                                  CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX\n                                                  13-SEP-2021\n                                                  07:52 AM\n                                                  Dkt. 97 SO\n                           N","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4910523],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7312746/sky-angel-us-llc-v-discovery-communications-llc/","attorney":"Cheryl Feeley, Lynn Estes Calkins, Jessica Lynn Farmer, Holland and Knight LLP, Washington, DC, for Sky Angel U.S., LLC., David L. Yohai, David Yolkut, Theodore E. Tsekerides, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, New York, NY, Peter D. Isakoff, Sarah Sophie Blanchard, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Washington, DC, for Discovery Communications, LLC, et al.","caseName":"Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Discovery Communications, LLC","caseNameFull":"SKY ANGEL U.S., LLC v. DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC","citation":["95 F. Supp. 3d 860","2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36632","2015 WL 1393559"],"citeCount":11,"cluster_id":7312746,"court":"District Court, D. Maryland","court_citation_string":"D. Maryland","court_id":"mdd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-03-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. DKC 13-0031","docket_id":64301225,"judge":"Chasanow","lexisCite":"2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36632","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:34:34.783277Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:25:47.103813Z","score":{"bm25":32.21971}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7230651,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:14:29.924596Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:25:47.113148Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMEMORANDUM OPINION\nDEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.\nSeveral motions are presently pending and ready for review in this breach of contract case: (1) a motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 177), filed by Plaintiff Sky Angel U.S., LLC (“Sky Angel”); (2) a cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 186), filed by Defendants Discovery Communications, LLC, and Animal Planet, L.L.C. (collectively, “Defe","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7230651],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10005455/city-of-hardeeville-v-jasper-county/","attorney":"","caseName":"City of Hardeeville v. Jasper County","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10005455,"court":"Court of Appeals of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"scctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-07-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2022-001266","docket_id":68950699,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-03T15:10:31.592792Z","date_created":"2024-07-17T15:11:49.388623Z","score":{"bm25":31.616657}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1240570,1241725,1263855,1274091,1277520,2111616,4378627,8292033],"download_url":"http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/6071.pdf","id":10472056,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/07/03/city_of_hardeeville_v._jasper_county.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T01:12:23.980086Z","date_created":"2024-07-17T15:11:49.390901Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1e4c5c4d89f56593283a9db47a60baf29b5b800f","snippet":"        THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n            In The Court of Appeals\n\nCity of Hardeeville, Appellant,\n\nv.\n\nJasper County, South Carolina; Jasper County Treasurer;\nand Jasper County Auditor, Respondents,\n\nAND\n\nJasper County, South Carolina, Cross-Plaintiff,\n\nVerna Garvin, in her official capacity as Jasper County\nTreasurer, Cross-Plaintiff,\n\nand Monica Wilson, in her official capacity as Jasper\nCounty Auditor, Cross-Plaintiff\n\nv.\n\nCity of Hardeeville, Nickel Plate Road, LLC, and\nBeaufort Count","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10472056],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This appeal arises out of a dispute related to levying taxes on a multi county business park (MCBP) and the distribution of revenue pursuant to an MCBP agreement between Beaufort and Jasper counties. The City of Hardeeville appeals the circuit court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Jasper County, the Jasper County Auditor, and the Jasper County Treasurer (collectively, Jasper County Entities). The City of Hardeeville argues the circuit court erred in finding that: (1) the MCBP agreement between Beaufort and Jasper counties was valid and in compliance with constitutional and statutory law (2) additional discovery was not necessary (3) Hardeeville's consent to the agreement was not required and (4) all property in the MCBP, including the annexed property, is exempt from all ad valorem taxation. We affirm."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2990173/american-discovery-energy-inc-v-apache-corporation/","attorney":"Joseph Mark Parsons, Kirk Crutcher, Amarillo, for appellant., Christopher W. Barnes, Houston, for ap-pellee., Panel consists of Justices FROST, SEYMORE, and JAMISON.","caseName":"American Discovery Energy, Inc. v. Apache Corporation","caseNameFull":"AMERICAN DISCOVERY ENERGY, INC., Appellant, v. APACHE CORPORATION, Appellee","citation":["367 S.W.3d 704","2012 WL 1059166","2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2502"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2990173,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp14","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-03-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14-11-00158-CV","docket_id":2847402,"judge":"Frost","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T10:14:10.735590Z","date_created":"2015-09-23T03:30:12.538866Z","score":{"bm25":31.455109}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1449758,2107112,2355131,2382755,2449754],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=12818&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa14%5cOpinion","id":2990173,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2012/03/29/american_discovery_energy_inc._v._apache_corporation_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T10:14:10.739209Z","date_created":"2015-09-23T02:56:11.946448Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"03bee3ee84a3cf8e09fcd2d0a9b32c5c10ca83c9","snippet":"\n\n\n  OPINION\n \n\n  KEM THOMPSON FROST, Justice.\n \n\n  In this restricted appeal, a defendant entity challenges the trial court’s rendition of default judgment, claiming that the plaintiff failed to comply with a statute governing service of process when attempting to serve a corporation through the secretary of state. Because the statutory language applies to service of not","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2990173],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2662759/yung-v-it-discovery-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Yung v. It Discovery, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2662759,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-03-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2011-0857","docket_id":159490,"judge":"Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:40:37.340594Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T07:07:20.314344Z","score":{"bm25":31.437292}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2400702],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv0857-56","id":2662759,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2012/03/15/yung_v._it_discovery_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T21:44:58.338219Z","date_created":"2014-04-03T12:50:04.965017Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e7a3860b1c0f1011a8283ba27b56ba35c3363908","snippet":"                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\nKWONG YUNG,\n\n       Plaintiff,                                            Civ. No. 1:11-0857 (JMF)\n\n       v.\n\nINSTITUTIONAL TRADING\nCORPORATION, et al.,\n\n       Defendants.\n\n\n                                     MEMORANDUM ORDER\n\n       Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or In the Alternative, for\n\nSummary Judgment [#47]. Defendants Institutional Trading C","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2662759],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2336945/in-re-discovery-operating-inc/","attorney":"Deborah Essig Taylor, Brewer & Pritch-ard, P.C., Houston, James V. Hammett, Lampasas, for appellant., Rodney Satterwhite, Pat Long Weaver, Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy, Laughlin & Browder, Inc., Midland, Brian Roger Sullivan, McElroy, Sullivan & Miller, LLP, Austin, for real party in interest.","caseName":"In Re Discovery Operating, Inc.","caseNameFull":"In Re DISCOVERY OPERATING, INC.","citation":["216 S.W.3d 898","168 Oil & Gas Rep. 431","2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1245","2007 WL 512351"],"citeCount":19,"cluster_id":2336945,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Eastland","court_id":"txctapp11","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-02-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"11-06-00301-CV","docket_id":2207027,"judge":"Austin McCloud","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T08:12:23.400619Z","date_created":"2015-10-16T05:48:04.203886Z","score":{"bm25":29.73679}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[894764,1488873,1579863,1579981,1588952,1725958,1771669,2276191,2428092,2429634,2437936,3911639,3953637],"download_url":null,"id":2336945,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"texas/court_opinions/documents/f53a8932d9166f38.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T08:12:23.397239Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:09:34.011353Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"49cbd974ea40d2cf6782871bcfaa7a0bbe3d4e14","snippet":"Case Number: 11-06-00301-CV 08/14/2008 Case stored in record room 03/20/2007 Motion for temporary relief disposed proceeding denied 03/20/2007 Petition for Writ of Mandamus disposed proceeding denied 03/14/2007 response to petition for writ of mandamus 03/14/2007 Response to Motion 03/07/2007 Motion for temporary relief 03/07/2007 petition for writ of mandamus filed 03/07/2007 Appendix Filed 03/07/2007 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response; mailbox rule does not apply 03/07/2007 Phone cal","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[8394],"panel_names":["Jim R. Wright"],"posture":"Appeal from the District Court abated the proceedings until the Commission. Page 899","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2336945],"source":"ZLU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4882021/jackson-v-ohio-dept-of-rehab-corr/","attorney":"","caseName":"Jackson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2021 Ohio 1642"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":4882021,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-05-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20AP-233","docket_id":59897646,"judge":"Mentel","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:49:22.477772Z","date_created":"2021-05-11T19:15:15.070411Z","score":{"bm25":28.829765}},"neutralCite":"2021 Ohio 1642","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2689941,2732362,3694787,3743177,4226911,4289619,4539011,4542516],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2021/2021-Ohio-1642.pdf","id":4685800,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/05/11/jackson_v._ohio_dept._of_rehab.__corr..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T19:59:15.814306Z","date_created":"2021-05-11T19:15:15.089866Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ccb21e59a859d5f862a4ed1b2913a981a5d4ed93","snippet":"[Cite as Jackson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2021-Ohio-1642.]\n\n\n                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                  TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nTheodore Jackson,                                     :\n\n                Plaintiff-Appellant,                  :\n                                                                          No. 20AP-233\nv.                                                    :              (Ct. of Cl. No. 2019-0645JD)\n\nOhio Depar","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4685800],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The trial court did not abuse its discretion determining that appellee's responses to appellant's requests for admission complied with Civ.R. 36. The trial court did not abuse its discretion denying appellant's motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment as appellant provided no explanation for his delayed filing or why he waited so late in the case schedule to request discovery. The trial court did not err finding that there are no set of facts entitling appellant to recover for false imprisonment as appellant was incarcerated in accordance with a facially valid order. Judgment affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5444943/endeavor-energy-resources-lp-v-discovery-operating-inc/","attorney":"On Appeal from the 118th District Court, Martin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 6439, Timothy D. Yates, Judge., April E. Lucas,Austin, J. Derrick Price, Austin, C. H. (Hal) Brockett Jr., Midland, Joe E. Lea, Austin, for Appellants., Charles Christopher Aycock, Rick G. Strange, Midland, Joseph Andrew Baker, Midland, D. Davin McGinnis, Austin, Jill C. Pennington, Midland, John A. Jad Davis, Midland, H. Philip (Flip) Whitworth Jr., Austin, for Appellees., Drew Mouton, Big Spring, John T. Ferguson, Big Spring, for Intervenor.","caseName":"Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. v. Discovery Operating, Inc.","caseNameFull":"ENDEAVOR ENERGY RESOURCES, L.P. and Endeavor Petroleum, LLC v. DISCOVERY OPERATING, INC. Patriot Royalty and Land, LLC Stanley D. Elrod Karen M. Thomas Jon David Elrod Janice K. Gaither Joseph Elrod and Rebecca J. Williams, Norvella Ann Schafer, and Jackie Lue Wells, Trustees of The Mildred Haggard Irrevocable Grantor Trust","citation":["448 S.W.3d 169","2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11664","2014 WL 5463884"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":5444943,"court":"Court of Appeals of Texas","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.","court_id":"texapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-10-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 11-12-00322-CV","docket_id":61794812,"judge":"Bailey, McCall, Wright","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T05:14:35.920401Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T23:47:42.011970Z","score":{"bm25":28.746025}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[895227,1560763,1568694,1575789,1711552,1731729,1781373,1781956,2440359,3953428,3967108,3972843,4897901,5283249,9513080,9642242,9680848,9682233,9683418,9761495,9762901,9772575],"download_url":null,"id":5283324,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:59:09.017819Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T23:47:42.026078Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nJIM R. WRIGHT, CHIEF JUSTICE\nDiscovery Operating, Inc. (Discovery) and Patriot Royalty and Land, LLC (Patriot) brought a trespass to try title action against Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. and Endeavor Petroleum, LLC (collectively Endeavor). Claiming under various oil and gas leases, the parties asserted competing claims of title to, and ownership of, determinable fee interests in the minerals in t","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5283324],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2581048/kinzel-v-discovery-drilling-inc/","attorney":"Marion C. Kelly, Bernard P. Kelly, Wade, Kelly & Sullivan, Anchorage, for Appellants., Paul S. Wilcox, Lisa C. Hamby, Hughes Thorsness Powell Huddleston & Bauman LLC, Anchorage, for Appellee Discovery Drilling, Inc., Mary L. Pate, Eide, Miller & Pate, P.C., Anchorage, for Appellee Hart Crowser, Inc.","caseName":"Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Jeffrey KINZEL and Cheryl Kinzel, Appellants, v. DISCOVERY DRILLING, INC., and Hart Crowser, Inc., Appellees","citation":["93 P.3d 427","2004 Alas. LEXIS 103","2004 WL 1418691"],"citeCount":18,"cluster_id":2581048,"court":"Alaska Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Alaska","court_id":"alaska","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2004-06-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S-10190","docket_id":43192,"judge":"Fabe, Matthews, Eastaugh, Bryner, Carpeneti","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:08:23.693793Z","date_created":"2015-10-21T01:42:03.876001Z","score":{"bm25":28.684717}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[109091,112252,112470,199026,386222,474305,540135,579444,586295,610655,656600,744062,1121949,1147647,1151117,1161627,1202416,1204145,1287272,1288267,1292123,1344791,1418689,1430359,1436446,1456082,1926362,2139952,2158033,2302378,2516780,2520801,2599136,2607842,2609644,2614576,2614745,2631842],"download_url":null,"id":2581048,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:54:09.237308Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T10:39:34.982674Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5a550a7f76462154fb61726ad6bcd4c39d1630cd","snippet":"\n93 P.3d 427 (2004)\nJeffrey KINZEL and Cheryl Kinzel, Appellants,\nv.\nDISCOVERY DRILLING, INC., and Hart Crowser, Inc., Appellees.\nNo. S-10190.\nSupreme Court of Alaska.\nJune 25, 2004.\n*429 Marion C. Kelly, Bernard P. Kelly, Wade, Kelly & Sullivan, Anchorage, for Appellants.\nPaul S. Wilcox, Lisa C. Hamby, Hughes Thorsness","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[3679,3681,3685,3687,3689],"panel_names":["Alexander Ostroumov Bryner","Walter L. Carpeneti","Robert Ladd Eastaugh","Dana Anderson Fabe","Warren W. Matthews Jr."],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2581048],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}