Cases

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, District Judge. In this diversity action, Gerald Gentile (“Gentile”), a New York citizen, as Administrator of the Estate of Diane Gentile (the “decedent”) filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court claiming that Biogen Idee, Inc. (“Biogen”), a Massachusetts citizen, and Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Elan”), a citizen of neither New York nor Massachusetts

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 23-1808 Filed October 16, 2024 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSEPH THOMAS GENTILE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brendan Greiner, Judge. A defendant challenges his sentences for unauthorized placement of a global positioning devi

211 F.Supp.2d 334 (2002) Robert GENTILE, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN SPORTS, INC., Defendant. No. CIV. 01-10332-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 1, 2002. *335 *336 Donald T. MacPhail, III, Law Office of Donald T. MacPhail, Berkley, MA, Thomas P. O'Connell, O'Connell law Offi

CYPHER, J. **506 A jury convicted the defendant, Idelfonso Velez, of two counts of murder in the first degree for the deaths of Angel Ortiz and Trisha Bennett. Each conviction was based on theories of premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. Represented by new counsel on appeal, the de

Gentile v Ogden (2022 NY Slip Op 05078) Gentile v Ogden 2022 NY Slip Op 05078 Decided on August 31, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH GENTILE, JR., Defendant and Appellant. S256698 Fourth Appellate District, Division Two E069088 Riverside County Superior Court INF1401840 December 17, 202

Plaintiffs, Donald and and Susan Gentile, brought an action against several defendants, including Jerald Kehe, to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium based on alleged violations of the Structural Work Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, par. 60 et seq.) and for negligence. Defendant Kehe filed a third-party complaint against Van Doorn Roofing, Inc., plaintiff Donald Gentile's employer, seeking contribution. Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting summ

OPINION LINARES, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Guy Gentile’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (ECF No. 14(“Def Mov. Br.”)). The Government has submitted opposition (ECF No. 19 (“Gov. Opp. Br.”)), which Defendant has replied to. (ECF No. 23 (“Def. Rep. Br.”)). The Court decides this matter after hearing oral argument on December 21, 2016. (ECF Nos. 29, 31). For the

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ANTHONY LATERZA, Appellant, v. ROBERT GENTILE, Appellee. No. 4D19-2998 [June 25, 2020] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; G. Joseph Cu

KORNREICH, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Vittorio and Lydia Gentile, appeal the bankruptcy court’s orders granting the motions of Mark G. DeGiaco-mo, the chapter 7 trustee, to sell four investment properties arid the order denying their motion for reconsideration. This *582appeal is DISMISSED because the debtors lack appellate standing. BACKGR

People ex rel. Gentile v Vollmer (2019 NY Slip Op 07708) People ex rel. Gentile v Vollmer 2019 NY Slip Op 07708 Decided on October 24, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge: Plaintiff Paula Breitkopf (“plaintiff’), individually and on behalf of the estate of her deceased husband, Nassau County Police Department (“NCPD”) Officer Geoffrey Breitkopf (“Breitkopf’ or “decedent”), brings this action against defendants Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) Police Officer Glenn Gentile (“Gentile”); MTA Police Officer Jose Ra

OPINION {¶ 1} Appellants, Sat Adlaka and Karen Adlaka, appeal the summary judgment entered in favor of appellees, Valley Electrical Consolidated, Inc. ("VEC") and Molex, Inc. ("Molex"), by the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas on their action for *Page 2 breach of contract and fraud. At issue is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact on either or both o

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 18-1242 ____________ SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Appellant v. GUY GENTILE ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Moriarty-Gentile (2021 NY Slip Op 00328) Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Moriarty-Gentile 2021 NY Slip Op 00328 Decided on January 20, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Publi

Joseph v Rassi (2021 NY Slip Op 04967) Joseph v Rassi 2021 NY Slip Op 04967 Decided on September 15, 2021 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law

373 S.C. 506 (2007) 646 S.E.2d 171 The STATE, Respondent, v. Omar Sharitt GENTILE, Appellant. No. 4244. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Submitted April 2, 2007. Decided May 8, 2007. Rehearing Denied June 28, 2007. *509 Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, Commission o

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Chief Judge, dissenting. I cannot imagine a more cogent explanation of the meaning of a trademark than that offered by Justice Holmes in Beech-Nut Co. v. Lorillard Co., 273 U.S. 629, 633, 47 S.Ct. 481, 482, 71 L.Ed. 810 (1927). A trademark is not only a symbol of an existing good will, although it is commonly thought of only as that. Primarily it is

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: June 5, 2020 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** JEAN GENTILE, * PUBLISHED * Petitioner, * No. 16-980V * v. * Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey

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