{"count":76418,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0zMC45MzYzODImcz05NDczMzI3JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDgtMjgmcD0y&q=VESTING+OF+APPOINTED+INTERESTS+POWERS+OF+APPOINTMENT&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8443180/in-the-matter-of-the-estate-of-powers/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF POWERS","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2022 OK CIV APP 26","514 P.3d 1100"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8443180,"court":"Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla. Civ. App.","court_id":"oklacivapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-06-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":65662388,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-11T16:56:46.178889Z","date_created":"2022-11-02T21:08:00.311311Z","score":{"bm25":50.59037}},"neutralCite":"2022 OK CIV APP 26","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=492733","id":8414527,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2022/06/07/in_the_matter_of_the_estate_of_powers_7.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-11T16:56:46.134143Z","date_created":"2022-11-02T21:08:00.314633Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"04344b19ed554638a4d366c74f8485869772cc64","snippet":"\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF POWERS2022 OK CIV APP 26514 P.3d 1100Case Number: 119378Decided: 06/07/2022Mandate Issued: 07/07/2022DIVISION IVTHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION IV\nCite as: 2022 OK CIV APP 26, 514 P.3d 1100\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\nIN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LLOYD YATES ","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=492733","id":7801848,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2022/06/07/in_the_matter_of_the_estate_of_powers_3.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-12T18:51:09.987586Z","date_created":"2022-08-18T22:09:29.164696Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d62a19b40a93f49f2375edd7460cc71db5541aae","snippet":"\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF POWERS2022 OK CIV APP 26Case Number: 119378Decided: 06/07/2022Mandate Issued: 07/07/2022DIVISION IVTHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION IV\nCite as: 2022 OK CIV APP 26, __ P.3d __\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\nIN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LLOYD YATES POWERS a/k/a YATES P","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8414527,7801848],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4832383/in-re-appointment-of-special-states-attorney/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Appointment of Special State's Attorney","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 IL App (2d) 190845"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4832383,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-09-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2-19-0845","docket_id":18687154,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:36:45.674273Z","date_created":"2020-11-24T22:33:00.322362Z","score":{"bm25":50.418095}},"neutralCite":"2020 IL App (2d) 190845","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2052150,2103506,2121132,2229846,3135885,3151173,4163218,4401663],"download_url":"http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2020/2ndDistrict/2190845.pdf","id":4636162,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/09/30/in_re_appointment_of_special_states_attorney.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T20:07:50.111311Z","date_created":"2020-11-24T22:33:00.325221Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d365d672a0d497c019a591cc319d7af39b4e9b09","snippet":"                             2020 IL App (2d) 190845\n                                  No. 2-19-0845\n                         Opinion filed September 30, 2020\n______________________________________________________________________________\n\n                                             IN THE\n\n                              APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS\n\n                              SECOND DISTRICT\n______________________________________________________________________________\n\nIn re APPOINTMENT OF A ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4636162],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6622579/in-the-matter-of-the-estate-of-powers/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF POWERS","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2022 OK CIV APP 26"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6622579,"court":"Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla. Civ. App.","court_id":"oklacivapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-06-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":63580282,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:28:57.822375Z","date_created":"2022-07-08T20:11:13.091533Z","score":{"bm25":50.070522}},"neutralCite":"2022 OK CIV APP 26","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=492733","id":6498937,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2022/06/07/in_the_matter_of_the_estate_of_powers.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T20:12:41.689149Z","date_created":"2022-07-08T20:11:13.100214Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1cf02aa9913090446a8ef052242804c2bb551678","snippet":"\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\tIN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF POWERS2022 OK CIV APP 26Case Number: 119378Decided: 06/07/2022Mandate Issued: 07/07/2022DIVISION IVTHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION IV\nCite as: 2022 OK CIV APP 26, __ P.3d __\n\n\t\t\t\t\nIN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LLOYD YATES POWERS a/k/a YATES POWERS, Deceased:\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6498937],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6317491/in-re-the-appointment-of-a-guardian-for-zhuo/","attorney":"APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Grimaldi & Yeung LLP, Brooklyn (Naomi Levin of counsel), for petitioner.","caseName":"In re the Appointment of a Guardian for Zhuo","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Appointment of a Guardian for Zhuo","citation":["53 Misc. 3d 1121","42 N.Y.S.3d 530"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":6317491,"court":"New York Surrogate's Court","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sur. Ct.","court_id":"nysurct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-09-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62948652,"judge":"Torres","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:06:35.663306Z","date_created":"2022-02-05T19:55:37.519181Z","score":{"bm25":50.047985}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100233,106545,108281,109382,110506,112478,112786,130160,134743,1236300,5522538,5525907,5527122,5529539,5537333,5773701,5989715,6179989,6184840,6192425,6207013,6210339,6222538,9433860],"download_url":null,"id":6185939,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:49:04.240061Z","date_created":"2022-02-05T19:55:37.536535Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nMargarita López Torres, S.\nBefore the court is a petition seeking to appoint the petitioner as guardian of the person of the respondent pursuant to article 17-A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. The petitioner alleges that the respondent is incapable of autonomous decision-making by reason of a diagnosis of intellectual disability and therefore requires the appointment of a guar","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6185939],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10022160/in-re-appointment-of-special-states-attorney/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Appointment of Special State's Attorney","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 IL App (2d) 190845"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10022160,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-09-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2-19-0845","docket_id":18687154,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-30T15:32:52.399122Z","date_created":"2024-07-30T15:32:52.346394Z","score":{"bm25":50.03258}},"neutralCite":"2020 IL App (2d) 190845","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2020079,2036447,2052150,2121132,2195252,2229846,2530513,3135885,3151173,4163218,4401663,4636162],"download_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/0e31bc34-849b-4258-b50e-5332cccd3dcb/file","id":10488761,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/09/30/in_re_appointment_of_special_states_attorney_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T01:18:29.076077Z","date_created":"2024-07-30T15:32:52.354649Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6b41a4f92d8e5d9ab5cb9c78bea1525d7d39e543","snippet":"                                                                            Digitally signed\n                                                                            by Reporter of\n                                                                            Decisions\n                                                                            Reason: I attest to\n                           Illinois Official Reports                        the accuracy and\n                                         ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10488761],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6316405/in-re-the-appointment-of-a-guardian-for-dd/","attorney":"APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, New York City (Nancy Delaney of counsel), for petitioners., Advocates for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Legal Clinic, Brooklyn (Natalie Chin of counsel), guardian ad litem.","caseName":"In re the Appointment of a Guardian for D.D.","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Appointment of a Guardian for D.D.","citation":["50 Misc. 3d 666","19 N.Y.S.3d 867"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":6316405,"court":"New York Surrogate's Court","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sur. Ct.","court_id":"nysurct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-10-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62947566,"judge":"Torres","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T09:06:19.894151Z","date_created":"2022-02-05T19:53:57.564318Z","score":{"bm25":46.781727}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100233,103701,107082,107480,109768,2679204,2812209,6163017,6179989,6182296],"download_url":null,"id":6184840,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:48:43.640605Z","date_created":"2022-02-05T19:53:57.582185Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nMargarita López Torres, S.\nThis is a proceeding brought by Ms. D. and M.D. (collectively, the petitioners) to be appointed the coguardians of the person of D.D. pursuant to article 17-a of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. Ms. D. is D.D.’s mother and M.D. is one of D.D.’s brothers. Petitioners also seek the appointment of W.D. and A.D., D.D.’s brothers, as standby guardian and alterna","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6184840],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6236956/appointment-and-removal-of-federal-reserve-bank-members-of-the-federal-open/","attorney":"","caseName":"Appointment and Removal of Federal Reserve Bank Members of the Federal Open Market Committee","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6236956,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-10-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62601420,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:15.406180Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:41:39.248919Z","score":{"bm25":44.370163}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[90042,92120,93491,95239,105739,109380,112042,320298,393347,405221,790096,803749,1559081,2518125,4286673,8639466,9416730,9418565,9427682,9430708,9431444,9432915,9433083,9433462,9477092,9806335,9873454],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1349721/download","id":6103838,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/10/23/appointment_and_removal_of_federal_reserve_bank_members_of_the_federal_open.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T05:16:38.959802Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:41:39.251795Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8c26cba694e482344660de31b079f5359918e382","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n      Appointment and Removal of Federal Reserve Bank\n       Members of the Federal Open Market Committee\nThe statutory procedures for appointing and removing Federal Reserve Bank members\n  of the Federal Open Market Committee are consistent with the Constitution, and\n  would have continued to be so under proposed H.R. 6741, the Federal Reserve Re-\n  form Act of 2018.\n\n                                                                October 23, 2019\n\n                     MEMORANDU","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6103838],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The statutory procedures for appointing and removing Federal Reserve Bank members of the Federal Open Market Committee are consistent with the Constitution, and would have continued to be so under proposed H.R. 6741, the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 2018."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2019653/in-re-appointment-of-special-prosecutor/","attorney":"Robert L. Michels (argued), Dan K. Webb, Raymond W. Mitchell, and Katherine M. Gross, all of Winston & Strawn, LLP of Chicago, for appellant., Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Richard S. Huszagh and Ellen Mandeltort, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for appellee., David B. Mueller (argued), John E. Cassidy III, and Nell German, all of Cassidy & Mueller, of Peoria, for appellees Dean Stone, Michael Kraycinovich, and Tracy Jones.","caseName":"In Re Appointment of Special Prosecutor","caseNameFull":"In Re APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (The People Ex Rel. John T. Pepmeyer, as State’s Attorney of Knox County, Petitioner-Appellant)","citation":["902 N.E.2d 730","388 Ill. App. 3d 220","327 Ill. Dec. 609","2009 Ill. App. LEXIS 33"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2019653,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-01-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"3-07-0553","docket_id":1783494,"judge":"Burke","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T08:08:20.591729Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T19:26:44.834201Z","score":{"bm25":43.369797}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2026744,2027684,2043234,2047154,2047989,2052760,2054098,2076994,2079189,2081896,2095295,2101950,2106400,2116334,2124096,2128329,2132168,2170357,2184085,2245170],"download_url":null,"id":2019653,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T15:57:46.281261Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:04:07.033856Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"59bc3c48086e5e50208ca0f8f32077c25542ae5e","snippet":"\n902 N.E.2d 730 (2009)\nIn re APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.\n(The People ex rel. John T. Pepmeyer, as State's Attorney of Knox County, Petitioner-Appellant).\nNo. 3-07-0553.\nAppellate Court of Illinois, Third District.\nJanuary 29, 2009.\n*733 Robert L. Michels, Dan K. Webb, Raymond W. Mitchell, Katherine M. Gross, Winston & Straw","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2019653],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9470021/in-the-matter-of-the-appointment-of-the-council-on-affordable-housing-by/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Appointment of the Council on Affordable Housing by Governor Philip Murphy","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9470021,"court":"New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division","court_citation_string":"N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.","court_id":"njsuperctappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-0050-22","docket_id":68184368,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:24:07.507353Z","date_created":"2024-01-30T15:07:22.557823Z","score":{"bm25":43.01579}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1533325,1901249,1934300,1968392,1982257,2264413,2299329,2303072,2326324,2336614,2339947,2554762,2648913,2676802,2784982,4116418,4427806,7294590,7313304,7321535,7322743,7323431,7323636,7329023,8227398],"download_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a0050-22.pdf","id":9927859,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/23/in_the_matter_of_the_appointment_of_the_council_on_affordable_housing_by_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:24:42.042920Z","date_created":"2024-01-30T15:07:22.559472Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"dfa3336d0d94381462cd162e2c339aad39da0182","snippet":"             NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE\n            APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION\n\n                                 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY\n                                 APPELLATE DIVISION\n                                 DOCKET NO. A-0050-22\n\nIN THE MATTER OF THE\nAPPOINTMENT OF THE                      APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION\nCOUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE                          January 23, 2024\nHOUSING BY GOVERNOR                         APPELLATE DIVISION\nPHILIP MURPHY.\n__________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9927859],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9468091/in-the-matter-of-the-appointment-of-the-council-on-affordable-housing-by/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Appointment of the Council on Affordable Housing by Governor Philip Murphy","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9468091,"court":"New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division","court_citation_string":"N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.","court_id":"njsuperctappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-0050-22","docket_id":68184368,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:23:40.380688Z","date_created":"2024-01-23T15:06:58.512710Z","score":{"bm25":42.412918}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1533325,1901249,1934300,1968392,1982257,2264413,2299329,2303072,2326324,2336614,2339947,2554762,2648913,2676802,2784982,4116418,4427806,7294590,7313304,7321535,7322743,7323431,7323636,7329023,8227398],"download_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a0050-22.pdf","id":9925929,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/23/in_the_matter_of_the_appointment_of_the_council_on_affordable_housing_by.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:14:34.356263Z","date_created":"2024-01-23T15:06:58.514708Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b55e688b3c0bf756c923cf1cb483dfc357a072af","snippet":"             NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE\n            APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION\n\n                                 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY\n                                 APPELLATE DIVISION\n                                 DOCKET NO. A-0050-22\n\nIN THE MATTER OF THE\nAPPOINTMENT OF THE                      APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION\nCOUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE                          January 23, 2024\nHOUSING BY GOVERNOR                         APPELLATE DIVISION\nPHILIP MURPHY.\n__________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9925929],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9999022/spring-valley-interests-llc-v-the-best-for-last-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Spring Valley Interests, LLC v. The Best for Last, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9999022,"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":"2022-000813","docket_id":68929149,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-03T15:10:31.518215Z","date_created":"2024-07-10T14:12:46.786961Z","score":{"bm25":39.88409}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1208524,1263564,1356484,3882333],"download_url":"http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/6070.pdf","id":10465623,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/07/03/spring_valley_interests_llc_v._the_best_for_last_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:33:12.955006Z","date_created":"2024-07-10T14:12:46.790967Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"329c275e583bea39bdee31547f0af4f9f300a1ce","snippet":"                     THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n                         In The Court of Appeals\n\n            Spring Valley Interests, LLC, Appellant,\n\n            v.\n\n            The Best for Last, LLC, Respondent.\n\n            Appellate Case No. 2022-000813\n\n\n\n                         Appeal From Richland County\n                      Jocelyn Newman, Circuit Court Judge\n\n\n                              Opinion No. 6070\n                    Heard May 15, 2024 – Filed July 10, 2024\n\n\n             ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10465623],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Spring Valley Interests, LLC (Spring Valley) appeals the circuit court's order finding void a contractual purchase option for a portion of property owned by The Best for Last, LLC. The circuit court found the purchase option was void pursuant to the common law Rule Against Perpetuities (CLRAP). Spring Valley argues this was error because the CLRAP has been preempted by the South Carolina Uniform Rule Against Perpetuities, which would provide protection to Spring Valley under the facts of this case. We affirm."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4755711/powers-v-hiranandani/","attorney":"","caseName":"Powers v. Hiranandani","caseNameFull":"","citation":["197 Conn. App. 384"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4755711,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-05-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC40470","docket_id":17186106,"judge":"Lavine; Keller; Devlin","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:14.970442Z","date_created":"2020-05-22T12:03:51.274972Z","score":{"bm25":39.242718}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1476603,1886157,2010642,2193360,2303605,2326482,2354434,2444802,2444847],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP197/197AP236.pdf","id":4536058,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/05/26/powers_v._hiranandani.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:15.012791Z","date_created":"2020-05-22T12:03:51.281329Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ac9e6f15c00d5ca631c1981f9c2d76fc4c60e829","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis- trict of Stamford-Norwalk and tried to the court, Jacobs, J.; judgment dissolving the marriage and granting cer- tain other relief, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Reversed in part; further proceedings. Samuel V. Schoonmaker, with whom, on the brief, was Wendy Dunne DiChristina, for the appellant (defendant). Tara C. Dugo, with whom were Haseeb Khan and, on the brief, Norman A. Roberts, for the appellee (plaintiff).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4536058],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff and issuing certain orders. Prior to the parties' marriage, the defendant and his brother, M, purchased two pieces of real property together, property L and property B. The defendant owned 99 percent of property L and one percent of property B, whereas M owned 1 percent of property L and 99 percent of property B. Property L was the marital home of the defendant and the plaintiff. M died in April, 2014 and, in his will, M devised his interest in both pieces of real property to the defendant. During the dissolution proceedings, the trial court ordered the defendant to transfer his rights, title, and interest in property L to the plaintiff and to retain ownership of property B, free and clear of any claim by the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant raised several claims regarding the trial court's orders concerning certain real property and its financial orders. Held: 1. The trial court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction over the real property awarded as part of the parties' marital estate; the trial court has plenary and general subject matter jurisdiction over legal disputes in family relations matter pursuant to statute (§ 46b-1 (c)) and has authority to transfer property germane to a dissolution proceeding pursu- ant to statute (§ 46b-81), including title to real property; moreover, to the extent that the defendant's argument is construed as a challenge to the trial court's authority to order the defendant to transfer his rights, title, and interest in property L to the plaintiff, the court did not lack the authority to do so; the court is required by § 46b-81 to divide the marital assets of the parties at the time of dissolution and, therefore, properly ordered the defendant to transfer his rights, title, and interest in property L, which was listed on his financial affidavit, indicating it was part of the marital property to be divided. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court's orders regarding the distribution of real property were predicated on a mistake and are impossible to execute; M devised his interest in property B to the defendant in his will and, on his death, the defendant became the sole owner of property B and it was irrelevant that M's estate had not been settled at the time of dissolution and that the defendant was not in possession of the property, as the defendant conflated ownership and possession, and, therefore, it was not clearly erroneous for the trial court to find that the defendant was the sole owner of property B. 3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the defendant to pay 53 percent of the cost of the child's extracurricular activities; although the court set no upper limit as to that cost, at the time of the dissolution, the cost of extracurricular activities as listed on the plain- tiff's financial affidavit was de minimus and the defendant failed to establish that the court's order constituted an abuse of discretion; more- over, if there is a substantial change in circumstances, the defendant has a remedy pursuant to statute (§ 46b-56) to seek a modification of the court's order. 4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in distributing the real property between the parties without determining the value of that property; the defendant failed to provide evidence as to the value of property B, listing the estimating value of property B as ''unknown'' on one financial affidavit and, in a second financial affidavit, providing the value of property B as of the date of M's death, whereas the relevant value in a dissolution action is the value as of the date of dissolution. 5. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to divide the parties' personal property listed on their financial affidavits and ordering them to divide the property to their mutual satisfaction; nevertheless, this court con- cluded that reconsideration of the court's order as to the division of the parties' personal property did not merit reconsideration of all of the court's financial orders as the few items of personal property are clearly severable from the overall mosaic that was the court's financial orders. 6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the defendant to pay the mortgage and other costs for property L until he transferred his rights, title, and interest to the plaintiff; the court's order required the defendant to pay the mortgage and costs for less than one month and, if he could not afford to do so, he could have transferred his interest in property L to the plaintiff immediately following the dissolution rather than wait until the end date set by the court. Argued December 10, 2019—officially released May 26, 2020"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3141169/in-re-appointment-of-special-prosecutor/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":3141169,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-01-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"3-07-0553 Rel","docket_id":2998761,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T17:55:03.860589Z","date_created":"2015-10-22T18:22:28.488208Z","score":{"bm25":38.749065}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2026744,2027684,2047989,2095295,2132168,2170357,2245170],"download_url":"http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2009/3rdDistrict/January/3070553.pdf","id":3141169,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2009/01/29/in_re_appointment_of_special_prosecutor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T03:26:46.648347Z","date_created":"2015-10-22T17:53:25.829083Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9553d4966a3e832a13e66de1760bb77c6cb4c8f8","snippet":"                                  No. 3--07--0553\n_________________________________________________________________________________\nFiled January 29, 2009\n                                      IN THE\n\n                              APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS\n\n                                 THIRD DISTRICT\n_________________________________________________________________________________\n\nIn re APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL             ) Appeal from the Circuit Court\nPROSECUTOR                          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3141169],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4873652/kimberly-anne-mcgrath-v-melissa-powers-hester/","attorney":"","caseName":"Kimberly Anne McGrath v. Melissa Powers Hester","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4873652,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-04-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2019-02147-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":59822241,"judge":"Chief Judge D. Michael Swiney","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:47:15.254061Z","date_created":"2021-04-14T21:13:06.488417Z","score":{"bm25":37.027153}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8281,"cites":[111620,1057574,1058396,1507097,1774520,2405777,2441758,2446990,2463818,2463878],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/mcgrath.kimberly.opn_.pdf","id":4677431,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/04/14/kimberly_anne_mcgrath_v._melissa_powers_hester.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-28T21:28:23.074424Z","date_created":"2021-04-14T21:13:06.496102Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"47587e16d723d68621bf163f2e35bdd5fec5836a","snippet":"                                                                                          04/14/2021\n               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                           AT NASHVILLE\n                               January 28, 2021 Session\n\n      KIMBERLY ANNE MCGRATH v. MELISSA POWERS HESTER\n\n                 Appeal from the Chancery Court for Wilson County\n                    No. 2018CV261     C. K. Smith, Chancellor\n                     ___________________________________\n\n          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4677431],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This appeal arises from an action regarding life insurance proceeds. As part of a permanent parenting plan, both parents were to insure their respective lives for $300,000 until the child support obligation was completed, with the children named as the sole beneficiaries to the policies and the other parent named as trustee for the benefit of the children. The Trial Court granted summary judgment finding that the children had a vested interest in the life insurance policy but that they were only entitled to the portion of the proceeds equivalent to the remaining child support obligation. With the defendant's concession on appeal that the children had a vested interest in the life insurance proceeds, that a constructive trust was appropriate, and that the most recent permanent parenting plan was controlling, the only issues before this Court involved the amount of life insurance proceeds to which the children were entitled and attorney's fees. We modify the amount of the Trial Court's judgment and hold that the children are entitled to the entire $300,000 life insurance proceeds per the agreed permanent parenting plan. We affirm the Trial Court's denial of attorney's fees. Additionally, we deny the mother's request for an award of attorney's fees incurred on appeal."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4316022/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-for-certified-and-court-appointed/","attorney":"Judge Rodney Smith, Chair, Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy, Miami, FL; Judge William David Palmer, Past Chair, Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy, Daytona Beach, FL; and Susan Carolyn Marvin, Staff Liaison, Office of the State Courts Administrator, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioners., Linda Kelly Kearson, General Counsel, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami, FL; and David Robert Hoyle, Chair, The Executive Council of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of The Florida Bar, Bradenton, FL, Responding with Comments.","caseName":"In Re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES FOR CERTIFIED AND COURT-APPOINTED MEDIATORS","caseNameFull":"In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators","citation":["202 So. 3d 795","41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 477","2016 Fla. LEXIS 2362"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4316022,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-10-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC15-875","docket_id":4483117,"judge":"Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Canady, Polston, Perry","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:10:31.403823Z","date_created":"2016-10-27T15:06:56.710712Z","score":{"bm25":35.72732}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1836809],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2016/sc15-875.pdf","id":4093283,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/10/27/in_re_amendments_to_the_florida_rules_for_certified_and_court-appointed.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T13:53:33.337872Z","date_created":"2016-10-27T15:06:56.717101Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c997473de4d059cd9e6b419469bdc3596ab5a213","snippet":"\n\n\n  PER CURIAM.\n \n\n  This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules for Certified and Courts Appointed Mediators (Mediator Rules). We have jurisdiction.\n  \n   See\n  \n  art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; § 44.106, Fla. Stat. (2016).\n \n\n  BACKGROUND\n \n\n  The Supreme Court Committee on Alternative Dispute ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4093283],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5344311/powers-v-state/","attorney":"Davis, J., concurred generally and specially and filed opinion in which Voigt, J., joined., Kite, C.J., and Golden, J., dissented and filed opinion., Representing - Appellants: - Angela C. Dougherty, Dougherty Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming., Representing Appellees: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; John G. Knepper, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Michael.","caseName":"Powers v. State","caseNameFull":"Kerry and Clara POWERS, on behalf of themselves and the citizens of Wyoming, and Cindy Hill, on behalf of herself and as the Superintendent of Public Instruction, (Plaintiffs) v. STATE of Wyoming and Matthew H. Mead, Governor, in his official capacity, (Defendants)","citation":["318 P.3d 300","2014 WY 15","2014 WL 295234","2014 Wyo. LEXIS 16"],"citeCount":18,"cluster_id":5344311,"court":"Wyoming Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Wyo.","court_id":"wyo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-01-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. S-13-0052","docket_id":61691981,"judge":"Burke, Davis, Golden, Kite, Ret, Voigt","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:47:33.325265Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:05:53.518733Z","score":{"bm25":33.083633}},"neutralCite":"2014 WY 15","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5176990,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:22:13.646408Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:05:53.549024Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nBURKE, Justice.\n[T1] This matter comes before us as four certified questions from the district court for the First Judicial District of Wyoming. These questions ask us to determine whether Senate Enrolled Act 0001 violates the Wyoming Constitution. We conclude the Act unconstitutionally deprives the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of the power of \"general supervision of the public schools\" that is entrusted to the S","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5176992,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:22:13.649546Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:05:53.576789Z"},"ordering_key":3,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nKITE, Chief Justice, and GOLDEN, Justice (Ret.),\ndissenting.\n[¶89] Superintendent Hill and the Powers assert that Senate Enrolled Act 0001 (SEA 0001) is unconstitutional because it takes away from the office of superintendent of public instruction (hereinafter superintendent) the powers and duties of general supervision of the public schools. \"It is always a matter of very grave importance to decide upon the con","type":"dissent"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5176990,5176991,5176992],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2501588/powers-v-wagner/","attorney":"\n\nMary McCullers Reece for plaintiff s-appellees.\n, \nMarcia Kaye Stewart for defendant-appellant Radiyya Ali.\n","caseName":"Powers v. Wagner","caseNameFull":"SHARON POWERS and CLAUDE W. POWERS, Plaintiffs v. BRANNON WAGNER and RADIYYA ALI, Defendants","citation":["716 S.E.2d 354","213 N.C. App. 353","2011 N.C. App. LEXIS 1471"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":2501588,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-07-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"COA10-689","docket_id":2332286,"judge":"Geer, Bryant, Stephens","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:22:02.043395Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:26:34.311149Z","score":{"bm25":32.989563}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8006,"cites":[111974,1201277,1232602,1255479,1266089,1294146,1330460,1340055,1340120,1358449,2392825,2395907],"download_url":null,"id":2501588,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:15:11.381496Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:58:45.873213Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"897203660cafb93d5aec1e577f0a55d42f3d598b","snippet":"\n716 S.E.2d 354 (2011)\nSharon POWERS and Claude W. Powers, Plaintiffs,\nv.\nBrannon WAGNER and Radiyya Ali, Defendants.\nNo. COA10-689.\nCourt of Appeals of North Carolina.\nJuly 19, 2011.\n*355 Mary McCullers Reece for plaintiffs-appellees.\nMarcia Kaye Stewart, for defendant-appellant Radiyya Ali.\nGEER, Judge.\nDefe","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2501588],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10770443/spring-valley-interests-llc-v-the-best-for-last-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Spring Valley Interests, LLC v. The Best for Last, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10770443,"court":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C.","court_id":"sc","court_jurisdiction":"S","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-01-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2024-001994","docket_id":72112944,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-01-07T16:13:05.101671Z","date_created":"2026-01-07T16:13:03.728653Z","score":{"bm25":32.307304}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1205915,1208524,1222725,1258049,1277965,1300732,1301419,1330267,1333607,1355690,1392727,1422884,2369482,3887009,8290119,8293925,8294637,8900758,9744698,9852744],"download_url":"https://www.sccourts.org/media/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/28309.pdf","id":11237028,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/01/07/spring_valley_interests_llc_v._the_best_for_last_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-01-07T16:13:13.449362Z","date_created":"2026-01-07T16:13:03.769818Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c36d62ff0fe4a88d8779728e9c4ce1db449640cb","snippet":"                      THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n                           In The Supreme Court\n\n             Spring Valley Interests, LLC, Petitioner,\n\n             v.\n\n             The Best for Last, LLC, Respondent.\n\n             Appellate Case No. 2024-001994\n\n\n\n        ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS\n\n\n                            Appeal from Richland County\n                        Jocelyn Newman, Circuit Court Judge\n\n\n                               Opinion No. 28309\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11237028],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"We reverse the court of appeals and hold the General Assembly intended to abolish the common law rule against perpetuities and replace it with the South Carolina Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities. We also remand the waiver issue to the circuit court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4629386/hinds-cnty-v-skinner-in-re-appointment-setting-salary-for-cnty-court/","attorney":"\n  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: PIETER JOHN TEEUWISSEN, ANTHONY RENARD SIMON\n , \n  ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: SORIE S. TARAWALLY, Jackson\n ","caseName":"Hinds Cnty. v. Skinner (In Re Appointment & Setting Salary for Cnty. Court Adm'r & Deputy Court Adm'r)","caseNameFull":"In RE: In the Matter of the APPOINTMENT AND SETTING SALARY FOR COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR AND DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR: Hinds County, Mississippi v. Hon. William Skinner and Larita Cooper Stokes","citation":["275 So. 3d 87"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":4629386,"court":"Mississippi Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Miss.","court_id":"miss","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-06-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"NO. 2017-CA-01269-SCT","docket_id":15771309,"judge":"Beam, Randolph, Ishee, Griffis","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:39:55.787909Z","date_created":"2019-06-13T19:06:21.304228Z","score":{"bm25":31.849182}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9888718,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:00:22.454460Z","date_created":"2023-10-06T19:46:27.502674Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\n   GRIFFIS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:\n  \n\n   ¶1. Hinds County appeals from an administrative order signed by two Hinds County Court judges that appointed and set the salaries of the county court administrator and the deputy county court administrator. The county judges sought to set the salaries of their administrators at an amount greater than the budgeted amount set by the Hinds County Board of Supervisors. In this direct appeal, H","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[85330,1715200,1813215],"download_url":"http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO138223.pdf","id":4406639,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/06/13/hinds_county_mississippi_v._william_skinner.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:30:41.967793Z","date_created":"2019-06-13T19:06:21.308250Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"89723c8f427fb95ed3f73eb08d0bcb0684f9698c","snippet":"                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI\n\n                                NO. 2017-CA-01269-SCT\n\nIN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE\nAPPOINTMENT AND SETTING SALARY FOR\nCOUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR AND\nDEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR: HINDS\nCOUNTY, MISSISSIPPI\n\nv.\n\nHON. WILLIAM SKINNER AND LARITA\nCOOPER STOKES\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:                          08/21/2017\nTRIAL JUDGE:                               HON. WILLIAM LOUIS SKINNER, II\nCOURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:                 HINDS COUNTY COU","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9888718,9888719,4406639],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9473327/estate-of-heath/","attorney":"","caseName":"Estate of Heath","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 ND 23"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":9473327,"court":"North Dakota Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.D.","court_id":"nd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20230250","docket_id":68234691,"judge":"Jensen, Jon J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:24:53.317041Z","date_created":"2024-02-08T16:08:33.420357Z","score":{"bm25":30.936382}},"neutralCite":"2024 ND 23","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[879552,895706,896101,896201,896715,897404,1303764,1865692,2015067,2075057,2228983,2288068,4191915,4661345,9811762],"download_url":"http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2024ND23","id":9931165,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/02/08/estate_of_heath.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T09:16:23.640129Z","date_created":"2024-02-08T16:08:33.438606Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"308df3984f652c32423840a8f37c3ce5d4b55f3e","snippet":"                                                                             FILED\n                                                                     IN THE OFFICE OF THE\n                                                                  CLERK OF SUPREME COURT\n                                                                       FEBRUARY 8, 2024\n                                                                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA\n\n\n\n\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT\n                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9931165],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"PROBATE - WILLS - TRUSTS","syllabus":"A prerequisite to obtaining an order establishing the authority of a domiciliary foreign personal representative is proof of the authority to act as the personal representative in the foreign jurisdiction, meaning an active appointment in the foreign jurisdiction. Chapter 30.1-24, N.D.C.C., gives a district court the authority to consider petitions to initiate foreign probate proceedings. The issuance of an order without satisfaction of all of the statutory prerequisites does not divest subject matter jurisdiction. It is instead an error in the application of the law, which may furnish grounds for appeal, but it does not invalidate the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). To grant a motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), the district court must make a finding that the motion was brought within a reasonable time otherwise, the motion must be denied. A trustee with an interest in a disputed mineral interest that it contends is intended to benefit the trust has sufficient interest in the probate proceedings disposing of those interests, to possess standing. The district court may only take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is either generally known within the court's territorial jurisdiction or it is a fact that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."}]}