⚖ 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.

7 opinions for “Defoe v. Boston Scientific Corporation”

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2024-07-29 · Published · cited 5× · 109 F.4th 453
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0159p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ PARENTS DEFENDING EDUCATION, │ Plaintiff-Ap
Bilski v. Kappospublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2010-06-28 · Published · cited 234× · 177 L. Ed. 2d 792; 130 S. Ct. 3218; 561 U.S. 593; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5521
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor join, concurring in the judgment. In the area of patents, it is especially important that the law remain stable and clear. The only question presented in this case is whether the so-called machine-or-transformation test is the exclusive test for what constitutes a patentable “process” under 35 U. S. C
Bilski v. Kappospublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2010-06-28 · Published · cited 576× · 177 L. Ed. 2d 792; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5521; 130 S. Ct. 3218; 561 U.S. 593; 78 U.S.L.W. 4802; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 703; 95 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1001
SEPARATE OPINIONS Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor join, concurring in the judgment. In the area of patents, it is especially important that the law remain stable and clear. The only question presented in this case is whether the so-called machine-or-transformation test is the exclusive test for what constitutes a patentable “process” und
Bilski v. Kappospublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2010-06-28 · Published · cited 0×
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 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
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025-11-06 · Published · cited 0×
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0307p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ DEFENDING EDUCATION, fka Parents Defending
United States Court of Claims · 1987-08-06 · Published · cited 0× · 13 Cl. Ct. 72; 56 U.S.L.W. 2132; 34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,361; 1987 U.S. Claims LEXIS 150
OPINION NETTESHEIM, Judge. INTRODUCTION In this omnibus action, plaintiffs Johns-Manville Corporation and Johns-Manville Sales Corporation (collectively referred to as “Johns-Manville”) sued the United States for settlements, judgments, and other damages resulting from 57 personal injury claims or suits (one added in an amended complaint that did not otherwise alter the original) closed pr
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1953-03-31 · Published · cited 26× · 96 A.2d 47; 25 N.J. Super. 292
25 N.J. Super. 292 (1953) 96 A.2d 47 BANTAM BOOKS, INC., PLAINTIFF, v. MATTHEW F. MELKO, PROSECUTOR OF THE PLEAS OF THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division. Decided March 31, 1953. Mr. Joseph Steiner, attorney for the plaintiff. Mr. Stephen V.R. Strong, attorney for th