Cases

547 U. S. ___ (2006) LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, DBA LABCORP, PETITIONER v. METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL. No. 04-607. Supreme Court of United States. June 22, 2006. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PER CURIAM. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. THE CHI

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 605 U. S. Part 1 Pages 327–334 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 5, 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 r

370 F.3d 1354 METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC. and Competitive Technologies, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS (doing business as LabCorp), Defendant-Appellant. No. 03-1120. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. DECIDED: June 8, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMI

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT ON BEHALF OF MINOR BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE & DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT ■ FUNDS [DE 506, 512] Daniel T.K. Hurley, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CASE, which invoked the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, is governed by Florida law. In particular at this juncture of the litiga

522 F.Supp.2d 761 (2007) Anita M. GEORGE, Roderick R. George, Sylas Ryan Truman George, an infant, and Mazzie G. George, an infant member of the household of Anita M. George and Roderick R. George, her psychological parents and custodians, Plaintiffs, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, a Delaware Corporation, Larenda Johnson, Jasmin Osman, John Doe, which is a pseudonym for a presently unknown person, Jane Doe, which is a pseudonym fo

599 F.3d 1277 (2010) LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS (doing business as LabCorp), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 2008-1597. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. March 11, 2010. *1278 Gregory A. Castanias, Jones Day, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appe

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1597 LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS (doing business as LabCorp), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. METABOLITE LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Gregory A. Castani

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER PAUL G. GARDEPHE, District Judge: Plaintiff Fred Pasternack commenced this action against Laboratory Corporation of America (“LabCorp”) and ChoicePoint, Inc.1 on June 3, 2010. The Amended Complaint includes claims for negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, as well as claims under Section 1983. (Dkt. No. 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION NORMAN K. MOON, District Judge. Plaintiffs, Ms. Seema Khadim and Mr. Sultan Zeb, are a married couple who filed a “wrongful birth” suit in the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville, alleging that negligence on the part of Defendants, Laboratory Corporation of America and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (collectively, “LabCorp”),1 le

Pre-award bid protest; Cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record; Standard of review — Bannum; Spoliation — GSA’s failure to maintain full record of procurement; Sanction imposed; Website information not incorporated into solicitation; Blue & Gold Fleet; Plaintiff did not waive claim that offer was timely; No patent ambiguity; Agency refusal to accept prop

911 A.2d 841 (2006) 395 Md. 608 LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al. v. Karen HOOD, et al. Misc. No. 1, September Term, 2006. Court of Appeals of Maryland. December 1, 2006. *842 Bruce R. Parker (Mitchell Y. Mirviss, William Piermattei, David S. Gray, Venable LLP, Baltimore, on brief), for appellants.

399 F.Supp.2d 670 (2005) James D. MCMILLIAN, Plaintiff, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Defendants. No. 1:04 CV 01169. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. August 23, 2005. *671 Nancy Pulliam Quinn, The Quinn Law Firm, Greensboro, NC, for Plaintiff. Paul K.

155 F.Supp.2d 891 (2001) Kourtney HARMS, Plaintiff, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a/k/a Labcorp, a/k/a National Health Laboratories, Inc.—Chicago Defendant. No. 00 C 0718. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 2, 2001. *892 *893

OPINION SIMON, District Judge: After excessive levels of the chemical perchlorate were found in a city’s water system, the city undertook to investigate *1041 the source of that contamination and remediate. Using a methodology known as “stable isotope analysis,” a scient

967 F.Supp. 295 (1997) LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., f/k/a National Health Laboratories, Inc., Plaintiff, v. UPSTATE TESTING LABORATORY, INC., f/k/a Omnilab, Inc., Defendant. No. 95 C 0085. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. May 20, 1997. *296 Matthias A. Lydon, Timothy P. O'Connor, Winston

503 F.3d 1295 (2007) VERIZON SERVICES CORP., Verizon Laboratories, Inc., and Verizon Communications, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP., and Vonage America, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 2007-1240, 2007-1251, 2007-1274. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. September 26, 2007. *1296

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE, United States District Judge Defendant Larry Paul Kunze a/k/a- Lorenzo Kunze1 sold his “family” business (Plaintiff Electrology Laboratory, Inc. (“ELI”), d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN LASER COLLEGE (“RMLC”)) but couldn’t give it up. So, as the evidence revealed, even while negotiating the sale of ELI to the purchasers

RAKOFF, District Judge: Plaintiffs allege that the defendants-ap-pellees (collectively “Takeda”) prevented competitors from timely marketing a generic version of Takeda’s diabetes drug ACTOS by falsely describing two patents to the Food and Drug Administration. Plaintiffs claim that these false patent descriptions channeled Takeda’s competitors into a' generic drug approval process that

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-3010 (APM) ) GOOGLE LLC,

MEMORANDUM OPINION Kevin R. Huennekens, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE The Court must decide in this adversary proceeding whether subchapter S corporation status (“S corporation status”) under Title 26 of the United States Code (the “Tax Code”)1 is considered “property” for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b), 548. A hearing on that issue was h