You are here
Opinions
The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2012 to current, listed by year and judge.
Judicial opinions from the District of Arizona, as well as other participating courts from throughout the nation, can also be accessed through the U.S. Government Publishing Office's United States Courts Opinions web page. To view judicial opinions on the GPO’s website, click here.
| Date | Description |
Judge |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/29/13 |
Ryse Construction, Inc. (2:11-bk-26778-SSC) 03/29/13 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 12/13/06 |
Stein V. Tripp Et Al (2:05-ap-01076-SSC) 12/13/06 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 06/01/05 |
Warfield V. Shamrock Foods Company (2:04-ap-00861-SSCP) 06/01/05 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 04/04/08 |
Gti Capital Holdings Llc Et Al V. Comerica Bank-California, As Successor By Merger T (2:07-ap-00031-SSC) 04/04/08 Memorandum Decision Denying Motion for Stay Pending Appeal - Mandamus |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 03/31/11 |
Mann V. Steele Et Al (2:09-ap-00635-SSC) 03/31/11 Memorandum Decision Concerning Claims of the Trustee Against the Debtor and Rhema Christian Center Under Sections 547, 548, 550, and 727 |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 03/23/10 |
Dennis C. Ekstrom (2:08-bk-07750-SSC) 03/23/10 Memorandum Decision re: Contested Hearing on Confirmation of the Debtor's Plan |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 05/01/09 |
Monica Emilie Johnson (2:08-bk-13937-SSC) 05/01/09 Memorandum Decision Clarifying Court's Ruling on the Record |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 03/01/06 |
Gti Capital Holdings Llc (2:03-bk-07923-SSC) 03/01/06 Amended Order re: Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 05/14/13 |
Pmm Investments, Llc V. Campbell (2:10-ap-01659-SSC) 05/14/13 Judgment |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 12/05/12 |
First American Title Insurance Company, Inc. v. Cunningham (2:11-ap-00629-SSC) 12/05/12 Holding: the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied its duty under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b), incorporated into this Adversary Proceeding as a result of Bankruptcy Rules 7012 and 7009, to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and has stated with particularity the allegations surrounding the alleged fraud. The Court has cited to relevant case law that provides a basis for the particular facts alleged to be considered fraud, though still recognizing that certain cases cited by this Court are not binding, but merely provide persuasive authority. Because Plaintiff has met its burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b), the Court denies the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) |