Cases

Case: 22-2185 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 04/04/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ AMS-OSRAM USA INC., FKA AMS SENSORS USA, INC., FKA TEXAS ADVANCED OPTOELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS, INC. Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., FKA INTERSIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant ________________

389 F.Supp.2d 658 (2005) Trine C. HYDE Plaintiff, v. RDA, INC., et. al. Defendants. No. CIV.A. RDB 05-317. United States District Court, D. Maryland. October 5, 2005. *659 *660 Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm LLC, Frederick, MD, Christopher Marc Lefebvre, Claude Lefebvre Christopher Lefebvre P

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 25-1698, 25-1755 PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS; PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF UTAH, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPA

06/26/2018 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 28, 2018 Session MARK IV ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 14-1677-IV Russell T. Perkins, Chancellor

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY 9, 2003 Session THOMAS G. HYDE, d/b/a MANAGEMENT RECRUITERS OF MURFREESBORO-NASHVILLE v. ISHIKAWA GASKET AMERICA, INC. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Rutherford County No. 00CV-712 Robert E. Corlew, III, Chancellor No. M2002-02653-COA-R3-CV - Filed

376 B.R. 242 (2007) In re DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF HYDE PARK, INC., Debtor. Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Dr. James H. Desnick, et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 00 B 11520, Adversary No. 02 A 00363. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. September 27, 2007. *243 John E. Frey, John C

360 B.R. 787 (2007) In re DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF HYDE PARK, INC., Debtor. Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Dr. James H. Desnick, et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 00 B 11520, Adversary No. 02 A 00363. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. March 2, 2007. *788

FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J. BROWN AND MARKLE, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules February 29, 2

COUNTS VIII, IX AND X AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (MODIFYING PARTS I AND II) JACK B. SCHMETTERER, Bankruptcy Judge. This proceeding was tried on remand after appeals to the Seventh Circuit by both parties from a judgment entered following the first trial. The parties rested after further trial on issues remanded, and final arguments were filed in writing. Findings of Fact an

21-2919-cv Eisenhauer v. Culinary Institute of America 1 In the 2 United States Court of Appeals 3 for the Second Circuit 4 5 6 7 AUGUST TERM 2022 8 9 No. 21-2919-cv 10 11 ANITA EISENHAUER, 12 Plaintiff-Appellant, 13 14

EBEL, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs John K. Freeman and Sports Racing Services, Inc. (“SRS”) brought this action alleging a variety of antitrust and contract-related claims. They appeal the dis-triet court’s grant of summary judgment against them on their claims made against Sports Car Club of America, Inc. (“SCCA”) and SCCA Enterprises, Inc. (“Enterprises”).

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. The principal question in this antitrust suit is whether at-shelf coupon dispensers are an economic market. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants (which the parties abbreviate *662 to NAMIS) after concluding that no reasonable juror could find tha

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 21-16506 Plaintiff-counter- defendant-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05640- v. YGR APPLE, INC., Defendant-counter- OPINION claimant- Appellee. EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 21-16695

Affirmed and Majority Opinion and Concurring and Dissenting Opinion filed January 25, 2007 Affirmed and Majority Opinion and Concurring and Dissenting Opinion filed January 25, 2007. In The

Opinion RICHMAN, Acting P. J.— Respondent Leopoldo Jorge, Jr. (Jorge), sued Almir Da Fonseca (Da Fonseca) and appellant Culinary Institute of America (Culinary Institute or Institute) for injuries sustained when he was struck by a car driven by Da Fonseca, a chef instructor employed by the Culinary Institute. Despite that Da Fonseca had finished his shift at

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TEXAS ADVANCED OPTOELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., F/K/A INTERSIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2016-2121, 2016-2208, 2016-2235 ______________________ Appeals from the United

825 F.Supp. 1216 (1993) DATABASE AMERICA, INC. and Ed Burnette Consultants, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. BELLSOUTH ADVERTISING & PUBLISHING CORP., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 92-3610 (AJL). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. June 15, 1993. Joseph B. Fiorenzo, Sokol, Behot & Fiorenzo, Hackensack, NJ, and Stanley L. Amberg, Robert E. Rudnick, Davis Hoxie Faithful

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRIAN JACOBS, ALAN JACOBS, THE ) BERNARD B. JACOBS AND SARA JACOBS ) FAMILY TRUST, JEAN-LOUIS VELAISE, ) DALE KUTNICK, TOREN KUTNICK, ) EDWARD B. ROBERTS, JOHN DENNIS, ) SHLOMO BAKHASH, and JOAN RUBIN, ) ) Plaintiffs, )

KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge. This action joins inquiry into the evolving doctrine of antitrust “standing” under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15. Plaintiff Southaven Land Company, Inc. (Southaven) initiated the instant cause of action against Malone & Hyde, Inc. (Malone) seeking injunctive and monetary relief for injuries allegedly resulting from Malone’s violatio

JAMES S. MOODY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 36), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Dkt. 42), Defendants' Memorandum in Support of the Motion (Dkt. 48), and Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Memorandum (Dkt. 55). The Court, having reviewed the filings and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that Defendants' Motion should be granted in