• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
1,244 results

RICHARD C GOFF et al. v. CECIL POWELL et al.

Docket 322020CA000373CAAXMX, Florida State, Jackson County, Fourteenth Circuit Court (Nov. 19, 2020)
Christopher Nida Patterson, presiding
Case TypeCircuit Civil 3-C
Plaintiff BONNIE A GOFF
Plaintiff RICHARD C GOFF
Defendant BEVERLY KILMER
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

RICHARD K GOFF v. PATRICIA ELSWICK et al.

Docket 512019CA002421CAAXES, Florida State, Pasco County, Sixth Circuit Court (July 16, 2019)
Gregory Groger, presiding
Case TypeCircuit Civil 3-D
Plaintiff RICHARD K GOFF
Defendant PATRICIA ELSWICK
Defendant TARA STEFAN
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Richard Leon Goff v. The State of Texas

Docket 05-18-00998-CR, Texas State, 5th Court of Appeals (Aug. 28, 2018)
Case TypePoss With Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance
TagsPossession With Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance, Controlled Substance, Drugs, Criminal
Appellant Richard Leon Goff
State of Texas THE STATE OF TEXAS
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Richard Leon Goff v. The State of Texas

Docket 05-18-00997-CR, Texas State, 5th Court of Appeals (Aug. 28, 2018)
Case TypeMiscellaneous/Other Criminal including Misdemeanor or Felony
TagsMiscellaneous, Other, Criminal Including Misdemeanor or Felony, Criminal, Felony, Misdemeanor
Appellant Richard Leon Goff
State of Texas THE STATE OF TEXAS
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

NORTH AMERICAN ORDNANCE

Docket 98917805, Trademark (Dec. 22, 2024)
Case TypeTrademark
ClassAmmunition for firearms; Blank cartridges; Cartridges for guns; Explosive shells; Rifle ammunition; Shotshell ammunition; Small arms ammunition; 002; 009
MarksNORTH AMERICAN ORDNANCE
Original Applicant Goff, Richard
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

FINAL JUDGMENT

Document RICHARD C GOFF et al. v. CECIL POWELL et al., 322020CA000373CAAXMX, 116 (Fla. 14th Circuit Nov. 18, 2024)
Motion for Judgment
Testimony revealed that Richard Goff had identified the Bannerman markers along the boundary of Lot 1 by placing bricks around the concrete monuments.
Hetestified that he found one monumenton the groundafter the clearing work was done, but he replacedit into the hole marked bythe bricks placed there previously by Mr. Goff.
Also see, Horn v. Corkland Corp., 518 So.2d 418, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) which addressed a mistaken trespass which involved the removal of numerous “punk” trees which were left in disarray on the property.
The Plaintiffs’ complaint did not set forth the proper claim or measure of damages for the facts presented to the Court as the trees allegedly cut were at the edge of natural woodlandsand there was no evidence of unique valueto Plaintiffs.
The Court expressly retains jurisdiction of this cause for the purposes of enforcing, construing, interpreting, or modifying the terms of the Final Judgment entered in this cause.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

NOTICE OF DEFENDANT POWELL'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

Document RICHARD C GOFF et al. v. CECIL POWELL et al., 322020CA000373CAAXMX, 113 (Fla. 14th Circuit Nov. 13, 2024)
apply for access to a driveway to the cul de sac of Jackson Bluff Circle, Goffs objected, andit wasdiscovered that there was an errorin the legal description to Temples and subsequently to Powell.
The case of Elowsky,id., had unique circumstancesin the nature of the removedtree (“resulting in the loss of the ornamental value and creature comforts provided bythetree to the occupants and owners”, id at 645).
it with a similar tree, taking into accountthe cost of growing that replacementtree from a seedling to its current size over time, essentially "compounding"the cost ofthe tree as it matures, while also factoring in depreciation based onits condition and otherfactors like species and location.” If Mr. Mirus consideredthese factors, they were clearly based on assumptions and guess work from fouryears prior.
The case discussion dealt more with the issue of class certification but interestingly notes that the individuals should have different values based onthe locationsite, contribution and placementof the removedtrees.
Defendant contendsthat the original Bannerman Survey monumentson the ground were marked by Plaintiff by brick locators and that they established a boundary between Lot1 and the Park Area.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

NOTICE OF FILING CASE LAW REGARDING BOUNDARY DETERMINATION

Document RICHARD C GOFF et al. v. CECIL POWELL et al., 322020CA000373CAAXMX, 115 (Fla. 14th Circuit Nov. 13, 2024)
Defendant, CECIL POWELL,byand throughhis undersigned counsel,files this Index and attached Case Law regarding Boundary Determination: Page 3 Acosta v. Gingles, 70 Fla. 13, 69 So.
717 (Fla. 1915); Page 8 DeRochev.
Winski, 409 So.2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) Page 11 Laurendine v. Markham,408 So.2d 839 (Fla. 1* DCA 1982) Page 12 Wadsworth v. Myers, 585 So.2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) [Certificate of Service on next page.]
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>