Cases

152 F.Supp.2d 95 (2001) TINGLEY SYSTEMS, INC. Plaintiff v. CSC CONSULTING, INC. f/k/a CSC PARTNERS, INC. Defendant. No. 95-10284-RCL. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 18, 2001. *96 *97 *98 G. Donovan Conwell, Jr., Guillermo A. Pernas, Jr

913 F.Supp. 1164 (1995) Verlina COBB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MONARCH FINANCE CORP.; Cole Taylor Bank; Sir Finance Corp.; Bank One, Chicago, N.A., Successor by Merger to Bank One, Evanston, N.A.; Brother Loan & Finance Corp.; Lakeside Bank; and John Does 1-10, Defendants. No. 95 C 1007. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.<

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 606 U. S. Part 2 Pages 831–941 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 27, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

Plaintiff, Emil Petrik, appeals from a judgment on the pleadings rendered against him by the circuit court pursuant to section 2-615(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2-615(e)) on his tort claim for the intentional spoliation of evidence. Plaintiff was discharged from his employment as vice-president-finance with defendant on April 6, 1979. He filed suit against defendant on April 3, 1981, alleging that he had been the victim of a retaliator

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

OPINION CONTI, Chief District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the court are the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 113) filed on behalf of defendant Collectcents, Inc., o/a Credit Bureau of Canada Collections (“Collectcents”) and the motion for summary judgment (ECF No; 119) filed on behalf of defendant Commerce Energy, Inc. d/b/a Just Energy (“Commerce Energy”). This court has juri

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF MARKETQUEST'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 205]; (2) DENYING DEFENDANT BIC CORP.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 216]; AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS BIC USA AND NORWOOD'S MOTION

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Liability on Its Sixth Claim for Relief (Unlawful Declinar tion of Proposed FY 2016 AFA), filed July 29, 2016 (Doc. 196)(“ MSJ”). The Court held a hearing on September 16, 2016. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Defendants (c

Kentz, J. S. C. During the trial of the issues in this mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff Monarch Federal Savings and Loan Association (Monarch) requested that certain computer records bo admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, Evid. R. 63(13). Defendants Lena Genser and Sidney Genser1 (Gensers) objected to their admission on the ground that plain

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Defendant ITT Educational Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 15], filed on April 28, 2014 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

156 N.J. Super. 107 (1977) 383 A.2d 475 MONARCH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, A FEDERAL ASSOCIATION DULY CHARTERED BY THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD, PLAINTIFF, v. LENA GENSER, WIDOW AND SIDNEY GENSER, DEFENDANTS. Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division. Decided December 19, 1977. *113 Mr. Robert J. Re

610 F.3d 820 (2010) DEUTSCHER TENNIS BUND, German Tennis Federation; Rothenbaum Sports GMBH; Qatar Tennis Federation, Appellants v. ATP TOUR, INC.; Etienne De Villiers; Charles Pasarell; Graham Pearce; Jacco Eltingh; Perry Rogers; Iggy Jovanovic; John Doe 7; John Doe 8; John Doe 9. No. 08-4123. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued November 2, 2009.

718 F.Supp.2d 382 (2010) MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 07 Civ. 11614(JGK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 16, 2010. *386 Andre K. Cizmarik, Anthony Joseph Viola, Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, LLP, Daniel Eric Shaw, Jonathan Lee Hochman, S

404 B.R. 593 (2009) In re ACCESS CARDIOSYSTEMS, INC., Debtor. Access Cardiosystems, Inc., North American Enterprises, Inc., John Moriarty and Associates, John J. Moriarty, Richard F. Connolly, Jr., and Joseph R. Zimmell, Plaintiffs, Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Access Cardiosystems, Inc., *594 Plaintiffs-Intervenors,[1] v. Randall Fincke, Defendant. Bank

349 F.Supp.2d 698 (2004) In re CORNING, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 92 Civ. 345(TPG). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 22, 2004. *699 Jeffrey A. Klafter, Bernstein Litiwotz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY, for plaintiff. Jeremy Goldman Epstein, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY, for defenda

444 B.R. 613 (2011) In re TOUSA, INC., et al., Debtors. 3V Capital Master Fund Ltd., et al., Appellants, v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Tousa, Inc., et al., Appellees. Nos. 10-60017-CIV/GOLD, 10-61478, 10-62032, 10-62035, 10-62037. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. February 11, 2011. *618 Nancy A. C

127 S.Ct. 2652 (2007) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Appellant, v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. Senator John McCain, et al., Appellants, v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Nos. 06-969, 06-970. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 25, 2007. Decided June 25, 2007. *2658 Paul D. Clement, Solicitor G