⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “Coy v. Focus Healthcare Management, Inc.”

Superior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2023-12-04 · Published · cited 0× · 2023 VI Super 75P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ERBEY HOLDING CORPORATION; JOHN R. CASE NO. SX-2018-CV-00146 ERBEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER JUPITER CAPITAL INC.; SALT Complex Litigation Division POND HOLDINGS, LLC; MUNUS, L.P.; CARISMA TRUST, BY ITS TRUSTEE VENIA, LLC; TRIBUE Action for Damages LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND ALTISOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
Superior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2023-12-04 · Published · cited 0×
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ERBEY HOLDING CORPORATION; JOHN R. CASE NO. SX-2018-CV-00146 ERBEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER JUPITER CAPITAL INC.; SALT Complex Litigation Division POND HOLDINGS, LLC; MUNUS, L.P.; CARISMA TRUST, BY ITS TRUSTEE VENIA, LLC; TRIBUE Action for Damages LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND ALTISOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009-10-29 · Published · cited 75× · 586 F.3d 500; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 23857; 2009 WL 3460808
586 F.3d 500 (2009) SCHERING-PLOUGH HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. SCHWARZ PHARMA, INC. and Kremers Urban, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Paddock Laboratories, Inc., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Nos. 09-1438, 09-1462, 09-1601. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued September 15,
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009-10-29 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 09-1438, 09-1462, 09-1601 S CHERING-P LOUGH H EALTHCARE P RODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. S CHWARZ P HARMA, INC. and K REMERS U RBAN, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, B RECKENRIDGE P HARMACEUTICALS, INC. and P ADDOCK L ABORATORIES, INC.,
Supreme Court of the United States · 2013-06-25 · Published · cited 381× · 186 L. Ed. 2d 697; 133 S. Ct. 2586; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4918; 570 U.S. 595; 76 ERC 1649; 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 435; 81 U.S.L.W. 4606; 43 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20140; 2013 WL 3184628; 76 ERC (BNA) 1649
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. *599 Our decisions in Nollan v. California CoastalComm'n, 483 U.S. 825 ,
Supreme Court of the United States · 2013-06-25 · Published · cited 0×
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2012 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
Supreme Court of the United States · 2026-02-20 · Published · cited 0×
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 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
Supreme Court of the United States · 2026-02-20 · Published · cited 0×
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 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
Kentucky Supreme Court · 2015-09-24 · Published · cited 50× · 478 S.W.3d 306; 2015 Ky. LEXIS 1867; 2015 WL 5634309
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE VENTERS This decision consolidates three cases accepted by this Court for discretionary review pursuant to CR 65.09. By -way of motions for interlocutory relief under CR 65.09, Extendicare Homes, Inc. d/b/a/ Shady Lawn Nursing Home (“Extendi-care”), and its affiliated entities,1- and Kindred Nursing - Centers Limited Partnership d/b/a Winchester Centre
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · 2015-12-07 · Published · cited 0×
FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, NO. CLERK IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TE
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2015-12-04 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 05-15-01480-CV 05-15-01480-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12/4/2015 2:42:24 PM
Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2014-07-31 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LEILANI ZUTRAU individually and on behalf of ICE SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 7457-VCP JOHN C. JANSING, Defendant, and ICE SYSTEMS, INC. Nominal Defendant. OPINION Submitted: November 21, 2013
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2013-09-13 · Published · cited 1× · 296 F.R.D. 528; 2013 WL 5106520; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131006
OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this federal antitrust suit, the Plaintiff registered nurses (“RNs”), Pat Cason-Mer-enda and Jeffrey A. Suhre, seek to recover on behalf of themselves and a class of RNs against eight Detroit-area hospitals, alleging in their two-count Third Correcte
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2015-10-16 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 03-15-00416-CV 7412400 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007-10-16 · Published · cited 6× · 534 F. Supp. 2d 500; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77557; 2007 WL 3054815
534 F.Supp.2d 500 (2007) FIRST STATE ORTHOPAEDICS, Roy Lerman, M.D. and all others similarly situated v. CONCENTRA, INC., Concentra Managed Care, Inc. and Focus Healthcare Management, Inc. Civil Action No. 05-4951. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. October 16, 2007. *501 *502
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010-05-28 · Published · cited 72× · 94 Fed. Cl. 512; 2010 WL 2255523
OPINION AND ORDER * GEORGE W. MILLER, Judge. These consolidated bid protests arise out of the United States Air Force’s (“Air Force’s”) exercise of options on four of six indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (“ID/IQ”) contracts to supply health care service providers. Plaintiffs Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc. (“Magnum Opus”) and The Healing Staff, Inc. (“Healing Staff
Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2008-01-15 · Published · cited 39× · 940 A.2d 43; 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 6
940 A.2d 43 (2008) David PORTNOY, Plaintiff, v. CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., A Delaware corporation, Mercedes Walton, Gaby W. Goubran, Jagdish Sheth, Ph.D., Anthony P. Finch and Scott Christian, Defendants. C.A. No. 3142-VCS. Court of Chancery of Delaware. Submitted: November 30, 2007. Decided: January 15, 2008. *45</
Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2007-08-14 · Published · cited 51× · 929 A.2d 786; 2007 WL 3325955; 2007 Del. Ch. LEXIS 119
929 A.2d 786 (2007) Vernon A. MERCIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTER-TEL (DELAWARE), INCORPORATED, Norman Stout, Alexander Cappello, J. Robert Anderson, Jerry W. Chapman, Gary D. Edens, Steven E. Karol, Robert Rodin and Agnieszka Winkler, Defendants. C.A. No. 2226-VCS. Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle County. Submitted: August 8, 2007. Decided: August 1
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2025-08-07 · Published · cited 0×
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2020-3605 _____________________________ SHANDS JACKSONVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., and UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellants, v. JENNIFER CHAVEZ and MARLON CHAVEZ as Parents and Natural Guardians of G.C., a Minor Child, and FLORIDA BIRTH- RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION, Appe
New York Court of Appeals · 2005-06-20 · Published · cited 51× · 840 N.E.2d 68; 5 N.Y.3d 327; 806 N.Y.S.2d 99
OPINION OF THE COURT Read, J. The issue in these appeals is whether plaintiffs have stated a viable cause of action to challenge the legislation authorizing the conversion of defendant Empire HealthChoice, Inc., doing business as Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Empire) from a not-for-profit to a for-profit corporation, and directing that certain of Empire’s