Cases

669 F.Supp. 741 (1987) Harry JUDD v. Ralph PACKARD, Warden, Maryland House of Correction; and Arnold Hopkins, Commissioner, Division of Correction. Civ. A. No. S 87-1514. United States District Court, D. Maryland. September 24, 1987. *742 Harry Judd, Mayo Correctional Institution, Fla., pro se. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty.

PAUL D. BORMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In this bankruptcy appeal, the Court is called upon to determine whether United States Bankruptcy Judge Thomas J. Tucker erred in dismissing the Chapter 11 voluntary petition filed by Appellant/Debtor Packard Square LLC ("Packard Square," "Appellant," or "Debtor") and barring the filing of any new bankruptcy case by or against Packard Square for a period of two years from the date of his

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, all former Colorado employees of Hewlett-Packard Company, appeal from summary judgment entered for Hewlett-Packard in four consolidated wrongful discharge actions. Although the circumstances surrounding each plaintiffs termination of employment differ, all plaintiffs argue implied contract and promissory estoppel theories give them the right to

909 F.Supp. 804 (1995) Cathy ORBACK, Allen Orback, Matilde Villarreal, and Carol Sanchez, Plaintiffs, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 93-K-1376. United States District Court, D. Colorado. December 6, 1995. *805 *806 Lee T. Judd, Andrew T. Brake, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for P

PLAGER, Circuit Judge. Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) appeals from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, 34 Fed. Cl. 483 (1995), denying HP’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11, Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). HP alleged that plaintiff Judin and his attorneys failed to perform a reasonable inquiry prior to filing Judin’s patent infringement complaint. Because

70 F.3d 123 76 A.F.T.R.2d 95-7805 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 199

OPINION BRUGGINK, Judge. This is an action for alleged patent infringement.1 Pending before the court is a Motion for Sanctions under RCFC 11 brought by third-party defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) against plaintiff Herbert Judin and his current and previous counsel (hereinafter “sanction defendants”). In addition, the motion seeks attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §

OPINION BRUGGINK, Judge. Pending in this patent proceeding is the motion of former Third-Party Defendant Hewlett-Packard Co. (“HP”) to renew its previously-filed motion for sanctions against plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant oppose the motion, although for different reasons.1 Oral argument is deemed unnecessary. For the following reasons, the motion to renew is denied.

OPINION BRUGGINK, Judge. Plaintiff Herbert Judin claims that the United States has made use of his patented invention without providing just compensation. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 3,656,832 (“ ’6,832 patent”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (1988). The United States served notice to various third-party defendants in accordance with RCFC 14(c). Among those third party defen

Opinion ORME, Judge: ¶1 Lori Ramsay and Dan Smalling seek judicial review of the Utah State Retirement Board’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Kane County Human Resource Special Service District, which operates the Kane County Hospital. Ramsay and Smalling contend that the board erred in granting summary judgment because the equitable discov

Case: 19-1622 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SHOES BY FIREBUG LLC, Appellant v. STRIDE RITE CHILDREN'S GROUP, LLC, Appellee ______________________ 2019-1622, 2019-1623 ______________________ Appeals from the United Stat

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1716 Doc: 52 Filed: 01/05/2023 Pg: 1 of 39 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1715 GERALD W. CORDER; MARLYN C. SIGMON; GARNET C. COTTRILL; RANDALL M. CORDER; JANET C. PACKARD; LORENA KRAFFT; CHERYL MORRIS; TRACY BRIDGE; ANG

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1715 Doc: 54 Filed: 01/05/2023 Pg: 1 of 39 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1715 GERALD W. CORDER; MARLYN C. SIGMON; GARNET C. COTTRILL; RANDALL M. CORDER; JANET C. PACKARD; LORENA KRAFFT; CHERYL MORRIS; TRACY BRIDGE; ANG

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Some years ago, Plaintiff Innovation Ventures (Innovation), manufacturer of 5-Hour Energy, settled a lawsuit with the now-defunct Custom Nutrition Laboratories (Custom Nutrition) by entering into a noncompete agreement. When Nutrition Science Laboratories (NSL) subsequently purchased Custom Nutrition's assets, it did not abide by the restrictive covenant

Opinion by Judge GRAHAM. Plaintiff, Linda Svendsen, appeals the order striking her expert witness and the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants, Walter G. Robinson, M.D. and Woodridge Orthopaedic and Spine Center, P.C., on her medical malpractice claim. We affirm. I. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion to s

363 Mich. 279 (1961) 109 N.W.2d 790 HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY v. NORRIS. Docket No. 24, Calendar No. 48,655. Supreme Court of Michigan. Decided June 28, 1961. Mitts, Smith, Haughey & Packard, for plaintiff. Warner, Norcross & Judd (J.M. Neath, Jr., of counsel), for defendants. PER CUR

94 P.3d 1204 (2004) Linda SVENDSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter G. ROBINSON, M.D., and Woodridge Orthopaedic and Spine Center, P.C., Defendants-Appellees. No. 03CA0365. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div IV. March 25, 2004. Certiorari Denied August 2, 2004. *1205 Andrew T. Brake, P.C., Lee T. Judd, Englewood, Colo

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1004 Doc: 46 Filed: 03/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 33 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1004 LATASHA ROUSE; EXABIA ROUSE; DANIEL RILEY; JESSICA RILEY; OSCAR DAVINES; SHERRYL DAVINES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MATTHEW F

141 P.3d 937 (2006) BFN-GREELEY, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; BFN-Loveland, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and John S. Buckley, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ADAIR GROUP, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04CA1824. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I. April 6, 2006. Certiorari Denied August 28, 2006.

ACCEPTED 15-25-00109-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/23/2025 5:08 PM NO. __-__-______-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE