UNITED STATES v. EDWARDS(1974) No. 73-88 Argued: January 15, 1974 Decided: March 26, 1974. Respondent Edwards was arrested shortly after 11 p. m. on May 31, 1970, and taken to jail. The next morning, a warrantless seizure was made of his clothing and over his objection at his later trial, which resulted in conviction, was used as evidence.
CELOTEX CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. BENNIE EDWARDS et ux. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit [April 19, 1995] Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that respondents should be allowed to execute against petitioner's surety on a supersedeas bond posted by petitioner Celotex Corp. v. Edwards: The Supreme Court Expands the 2015-12-2 · Supreme Court's recent decision in Celotex Corp. v. Edwards."0 In Celotex, the Court confronted facts similar to those summarized above." Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the seven-to-two majority, held that the issue of whether the plaintiffs could proceed against the surety was a question "related to" Celotex's bankruptcy, and the bank- Celotex Corporation v. Edwards | Oyez 2020-4-22 · "Celotex Corporation v. Edwards." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1504. Accessed 8 Jun. 2020. Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 15 (1995) - United CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS. Stevens, J., dissenting. attaches insufficient weight to the fact that the challenged injunction was issued by a non-Article III judge, I respectfully dissent. I. The outlines of the problems I perceive are best drawn by starting with an examination of the injunctions and opinions issued by the Bankruptcy Judge in this
Edwards v. Galveston-Texas City Pilots, 203 F. Supp. 2d
In Re Celotex Corp., 289 B.R. 460 – CourtListener.com See also, Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 310-13, 115 S. Ct. 1493, 131 L. Ed. 2d 403 (1995). [2] Throughout this opinion all references to Bankruptcy Code sections appear without citation to 11 U.S.C. [3] In re Celotex Corp., 140 B.R. 912, 917 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1992). [4] Id. Stating: 1. Within 30 days of the entry of this Order, Debtor MORGAN v. A.G. EDWARDS | 486 F.3d 1034 | 8th Cir
CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS ET ux. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 93-1504. Argued December 6, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a judgment in favor of respondents and against petitioner Celotex Corp.
Edwards v. Creoks Mental Health Services, Inc., 505 F Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Anderson V. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); Kendall v. Watkins, 998 F.2d 848, 850 (10th Cir.1993). "The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery Edwards v. Acadia Realty Trust, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1340 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). However United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.