Cases

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 189 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 190 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT

BROWN, J., Concurring. I agree that there is “no per se or categorical bar” to the class treatment of medical monitoring claims (lead opn., ante, at p. 1105), and that there are some common issues (see lead opn., ante, at pp. 1106-1108). I also agree that “the trial court *1112abused its discretion in granting the instant certification motion” becau

Opinion MORENO, J. This case addresses what claims and remedies may be pursued by a plaintiff who alleges a lost business opportunity due to the unfair practices of a competitor. The Republic of Korea wished to purchase military equipment known as synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems and solicited competing bids from manufacturers, including Loral Corporation (Loral) and MacDonald, Dettwiler, and Associates

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-2853 ___________________________ Daniel’la Deering Plaintiff - Appellant v. Lockheed Martin, a Maryland Corporation

684 F.Supp.2d 564 (2010) Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA, Department of Environmental Protection, Plaintiff v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil No. 1:09-CV-0821. United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. February 1, 2010. *567 Michael D. Buchwach, PA Dept. of Environmental Protection Office of Chief Counsel, Harr

Post-award bid protest; motion for preliminary injunction; likelihood of success; discussions; FAR § 15.306; equal treatment; irreparable injury. OPINION AND ORDER 1 LETTOW, Judge. The Army held a competition in three phases for a contract to design, develop pro

OPINION CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOUSTON M. GODDARD, P.J., and HERSCHEL P. FRANKS, J., joined. Following an audit by the Tennessee Department of Revenue (“the Department”), the Commissioner of the Department (“the Commissioner”) assessed and collected a use tax on computer software fabricated by Lockheed Martin Ene

242 F.Supp.2d 58 (2003) MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Plaintiff, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Comsat Corporation, Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications, LLC, and Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendants. No. CIV.A.01-11618-WGY. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 31, 2003. *59

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 661 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 662 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT

240 P.3d 162 (2010) 157 Wash.App. 649 Marjorie ARNOLD, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Reuben J. Arnold; and Daniel J. Arnold, individually, Appellants, v. SABERHAGEN HOLDINGS, INC., as successor to Tacoma Asbestos Company and The Brower Company; American Optical Corporation; The Boeing Company; Certainteed Corporation; C.H. Murphy/Clarkullman, Inc.; D & G Mechanical Insulation, Inc.; Hanso

Penoyar, C.J. ¶1 Marjorie Arnold and her son Daniel1 appeal the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Lockheed Shipbuilding Company and dismissing their asbestos-related claims.2 The Arnolds sued Lockheed after Reuben Arnold, Marjorie’s husband and Daniel’s father, died from mesothelioma. Together with Reuben’s claims stemming from his work as an insulator at Lo

PER CURIAM: We assume familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this dispute as laid out in our previous decisions. In In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., 11 F.3d 368 (2d Cir.1993), we held that the district court abused its discretion by consolidating forty-four cases representing a wide range of both factual and legal contexts, and we granted mandamus relief sua sponte.

WINTER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-appellees petition for rehearing following our decision in In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., 11 F.3d 368 (2d Cir.1993). They argue that our sua sponte grant of a writ of mandamus deprived both them and the district court of an opportunity to oppose mandamus relief. Furthermore, petitioners claim that events in the underlying litigation subsequent to the filing of the a

WINTER, Circuit Judge: Defendants-appellants International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) and Wang Laboratories, Inc. (“Wang”) appeal from Judge Weinstein’s order (“Weinstein Order”), In re: Repetitive Stress Injury Cases, 142 F.R.D. 584 (E.D.N.Y.1992), granting the plaintiffs-appellees’ motion to consolidate the forty-four cases in the Eastern District of New York that assert a claim for damages for “

927 F.Supp. 1098 (1995) SEBRING HOMES CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. T.R. ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant. No. 3:94-CV-485RM. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division. December 18, 1995. *1099 Max K. Walker, Jr., Cosentino Walker Shewmaker and Christofeno, Elkhart, IN, for plaintiffs. James M

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, No. 18-15499 individually and on behalf of the People of the State of California, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:17-cv-04929-VC v. CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION; BP PLC; BP AMERICA, INC.; SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC; CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART ALLISON D. BURROUGHS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE f Plaintiff Damian Medici filed his complaint on February 17, 2016, alleging that Defendants violated contractual obligations and federal regulations while investigating him for research misconduct, resulting in the loss of his employment and research grants. [ECF No',1' lj. On Ap

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge: Courts of the Anglo-American legal tradition receive their mandate, in the most profound sense, from Magna Charta’s twin covenants not to deny or delay — negabimus aut differemus — justice. To secure the first promise, courts administer a massive body of substantive principles. To fulfill the second, for centur

494 F.Supp.2d 717 (2006) Larry WYLIE, Plaintiff, v. ARNOLD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 3:05cv183. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. September 25, 2006. *718 *719 Lucas W. Wilder, Dayton, OH, for Plaintiff. Alison Day Hall, Littler Mend

ORDER RULING ON EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RICHARD SEEBORG, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Kathie Sonner1 contends defendant Premier Nutrition Corporation peddles what amounts to worthless snake oil: Joint Juice, a liquid dietary supplement containing glucosamine hydrochloride (“glucosamine”) and chon