Cases

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-24-00543-CV IN RE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and Terry Lee Donelson Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 Opinion by: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodrigu

518 F.Supp.2d 377 (2007) Michele OSBORN, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant. No. 05cv1673 (JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. September 19, 2007. *378 *379 *380 Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Pantuso Law Firm LLC, Milford, CT, Richa

976 F.Supp. 1467 (1997) Floyd ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. THE HOME DEPOT (U.S.A.), INC., Defendant. No. 96-6255-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. August 13, 1997. *1468 *1469 Lee Cohn, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff. Elizabeth P. Johnson, Heather Brock, Fowler, Whi

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO REOPEN DISCOVERY AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS [Dkt. Nos. 271, 285, 308 and related documents] SUZANNE H. SEGAL, United States Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This Order addresses whether Plaintiff Richard Reinsdorf has presented sufficient evidence of discovery misconduct by Defendants Skeehers U.S.A., Inc. and

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Re: ECF No. 54 JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Orchard Supply Hardware (“Plaintiff’ or “Orchard”) brings a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Home Depot USA, Inc., (“Home Depot”), Milwaukee Electric Tool Corpora

798 F.Supp.2d 541 (2011) LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and LG Electronics, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Patents Company, Whirlpool Manufacturing Corporation, and Maytag Corporation, Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics Monterrey Mexico, S.A., DE, CV, Counterclaim Defendants. C.A. No. 08-234-GMS.<

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE JON S. TIGAR,. District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Orchard Supply Hardware (“Plaintiff’) brings a Complaint (“the Complaint”) against Defendants Home Depot USA, Inc., (“Home Depot”), Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation (“METCo”) and Makita USA, Inc. (“Makita”) for violations of Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act (“Sherman A

727 F.Supp.2d 1038 (2010) GREAT NECK SAW MANUFACTURERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. STAR ASIA U.S.A., LLC, Defendant. No. C06-647Z. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. July 23, 2010. *1040 Joseph J. Previto, Collard & Roe, Roslyn, NY, Jerry A. Riedinger, Ryan McBrayer, Perkins Coie, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.<

229 F.Supp.2d 121 (2002) Kenneth C. LUMHOO and Jemel Anderson, Plaintiffs, v. THE HOME DEPOT USA, INC., James Duffy, Jose Camacho, Joseph Gervasi and John Clougher, Defendant. No. CV00-5267(MLO). United States District Court, E.D. New York. September 26, 2002. *122 *123

129 F.Supp.2d 1355 (2001) Fredrick GASTON, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., d/b/a Home Depot, Defendant. No. 99-1448-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. February 2, 2001. *1356 *1357 *1358 Sharon L. Blake, Miami, FL, for plaintiff. An

695 So.2d 484 (1997) Miriam HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign corporation, Appellee. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Miriam HERNANDEZ, Appellee. Nos. 96-1790, 96-2907. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. June 11, 1997. *485 Miriam Hernandez, in p

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0184p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ IN RE: THE WENDY’S COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION. │ ________________________________________

Opinion issued September 3, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00564-CV ——————————— EUTIVA THOMAS, THE PROVIDENCE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC., AND THE PROVIDENCE HOSPICE, INC., Appellants

MEMORANDUM DECISION ROBERT D. MARTIN, Bankruptcy Judge. Jonathan and Veronica Graham (“the debtors”) filed a voluntary chapter 7 petition on February 18, 2011. Associated Bank (“the Bank”) brought this adversary proceeding, requesting that the amount the debtors spent after the Bank mistakenly deposited it in their account be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(6). A trial was held o

Case: 13-14590 Date Filed: 05/18/2017 Page: 1 of 284 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al, (the “Debtors,” or “Circuit City”) filed these bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).1 The Debtors’ bankruptcy cases were consolidated for joint administration pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Fed

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0122P (6th Cir.) File Name: 00a0122p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ ;  GWENDOLYN T. GRAHAM-  HUMPHREYS, 

HERNANDEZ, District Judge: Plaintiff Skedco, Inc. brings this action against Defendant Strategic Operations, Inc., alleging that Defendant infringes Claims 18, 19, and 20 of United States Patent No. 8,342,652 ("the '852 Patent") which discloses a system for simulating hemorrhages in the training of first responders.1 The United States, through the Secretary of the Army, owns the '852 Patent. Plaintiff is

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. BACKGROUND.. .32 A. Factual Background... 32 B. Procedural History.. .33 1. Initial Complaint and Pre-Trial Proceedings.. .33 2. Jury Verdict... 34 3. Post-Trial Motions... 34 C. Applicable Standards of Review.. .35

USCA11 Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 06/03/2021 Page: 1 of 64 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10249 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT In re Equifax Inc. Customer Da