Loading…

Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith v. Shelton — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith v. Shelton

136 L. Ed. 2d 121 · Supreme Court of the United States · Oct 7, 1996

Full text

Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith v. Shelton

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 9282152

Citations

136 L. Ed. 2d 121
519 U.S. 869
117 S. Ct. 182
65 U.S.L.W. 3261
1996 U.S. LEXIS 5490

Cited by

Todd Enright v. Asclepius Panacea, LLC Asclepius Panacea GP, LLC Daily Pharmacy, LLC Daily Pharmacy GP, LLC And Toth Enterprises II, P .A. D/B/A Victory Medical Center
Tex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin) · Aug 24, 2015
In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & Erisa Lit.
S.D. Texas · Dec 8, 2010
Gary Kusens, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Pascal Company, Inc., Defendants-Appellees/cross-Appellants
Sixth Circuit · May 9, 2006
In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA
S.D. Texas · Oct 16, 2003
In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Lit.
S.D. Texas · Dec 19, 2002
Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Cheshier & Fuller, L.L.P. (In Re Sunpoint Securities, Inc.)
E.D. Texas · Apr 23, 2001
C.P. Interests, Inc. v. California Pools, Inc.
Fifth Circuit · Jan 30, 2001

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

Rankin v. Evans

Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 1998

MMAR Group, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

S.D. Texas · Nov 6, 1997

Bay Colony, Ltd. v. Trendmaker, Inc.

Fifth Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

Stadtlander Drug Co. v. Brock Control Systems, Inc.

W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 15, 1997

Reisman v. KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

D. Massachusetts · Feb 28, 1997

Parentheticals

“Technical noncompliance with Rule 50(b) may be excused in situations in which the purposes of the rule are satisfied.”
Gary Kusens, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Pascal Company, Inc., Defendants-Appellees/cross-Appellants
“A defendant’s objection to proposed jury instructions on grounds pertaining to the sufficiency of evidence issues it seeks to appeal may satisfy [the purposes of the Rule 50(b) requirement].”
C.P. Interests, Inc. v. California Pools, Inc.