Cases

716 F.Supp.2d 1275 (2010) TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ZIP WIRELESS PRODUCTS, INC., a Georgia Corporation; Timothy H. Yeager, individually; and William R. Yeager, individually, Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-2575-TCB. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. June 7, 2010. *127

ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge Both the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) have authority to regulate telecommunications companies in California. The CPUC recently initiated a proceeding to evaluate the quality, availability, and price of telephone and Internet service for California residents. It ordere

Docket No. 100925. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS DONNA M. KINKEL, Appellee, v. CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC, Appellant. Opinion filed October 5, 2006. JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Freeman, Fitzgerald, Kilbride, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion. Chief Justice Thomas an

857 N.E.2d 250 (2006) 223 Ill.2d 1 306 Ill.Dec. 157 Donna M. KINKEL, Appellee, v. CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC, Appellant. No. 100925. Supreme Court of Illinois. October 5, 2006. *254 Kurt E. Reitz, Roman P. Wuller, Robert J. Wagner, Heath H. Hooks, of Thompson Coburn, L.L.P., Belleville,

712 F.Supp.2d 1294 (2010) WIRELESS TOWERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, Defendant. Case No. 3:09-cv-676-J-32MCR. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. May 12, 2010. Mary D. Solik, Law Offices of John L. Di Masi, PA, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff. Jason R. Teal, City of Jacksonville General Counsel's Office, Jacks

44 Cal.Rptr.3d 733 (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 718 PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS, LLC, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent; Utility Consumers' Action Network, Real Party in Interest. No. G034991. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three. June 20, 2006. *735 O'Me

BRYSON, Circuit Judge. On November 8, 2007, Technology Patents LLC (“TPL”) sued more than 100 domestic and foreign defendants for infringement of U.S. Patents No. 6,646,542 (“the '542 patent”) and No. RE39,870 (“the '870 patent”). The allegations concerning the '542 patent were subsequently withdrawn, so only the '870 patent is at issue in this appeal. The defendants can be classi

Present: Lemons, C.J., Mims, Powell, Kelsey, McCullough, and Chafin, JJ., and Millette, S.J. DONNA KINSEY, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 200703 CHIEF JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS JULY 15, 2021 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY Bruce D. Albertson, Judge In this appeal, we consider whether the Circuit

Rose, J. Appeals from six orders of the Supreme Court (McGrath, J.), entered July 10, 2015, September 25, 2015, September 29, 2015, December 29, 2015, December 30, 2015 and January 21, 2016 in Rensselaer County, which, among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion to extend the time for service. In 2013,

Rose, J. Appeals from six orders of the Supreme Court (McGrath, J.), entered July 10, 2015, September 25, 2015, September 29, 2015, December 29, 2015, December 30, 2015 and January 21, 2016 in Rensselaer County, which, among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion to extend the time for service. In 2013, plaintiff came to the attention of law enforcement

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals arise from claims that major telecommunications carriers assisted the government with intelligence gathering following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. News reports that the National Security Agency (“NSA”) undertook a warrantless eavesdropping program with alleged cooperation by telecommunications companies spawned dozens of lawsuits

Filed 2/5/18; pub. order 2/27/18 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT APTOS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, H042854 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. CV179176) v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, Defendant and Respondent; CROWN CASTLE, INC.,

[Cite as State v. Adams, 2013-Ohio-926.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-120059 TRIAL NO. B-1100833 Plaintiff-Appellee, : vs. : O P I N I O N. PAUL A

Mihara, J. *609*1042Appellant Aptos Residents Association (ARA) challenges the superior court's denial of its petition for a writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21000, et seq. ). ARA's petition

603 F.Supp.2d 715 (2009) NEW YORK SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Verizon Wireless, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, Spring Spectrum, L.P., and Omnipoint Communications, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, and The Town Board of the Town of Clarkstown, Defendants. No. 07 Civ 7637(WGY). United States District Court, S.D. New York.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CASPER, District Judge. I.Introduction Plaintiffs Small Justice LLC (“Small Justice”), Richard A. Goren' (“Goren”) and Christian DuPont d/b/a Arabiannights-Bostón, Massachusetts (“DuPont”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) have filed this lawsuit against Defendant Xcentric Ventures LLC (“Xcentric”) seeking declaratory judgment as to the ownership of copyr

OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. I. Introductory Statement The joinder provision of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) has had an evident impact on the procedural handling of patent infringement actions in scenarios where a plaintiff seeks to hold multiple defendants liable based on similarly designed consumer products. 35 U.S.C. § 299. To the extent joinder of

KENNETH M. KARAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Martin B. Novick, Jr. ("Plaintiff") brings this action against the Village of Wappinger Falls, New York (the "Village" or "Defendant"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment because he

(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

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 606 U. S. Part 2 Pages 656–747 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