Cases

100 F.Supp.2d 1265 (2000) Norman A. BLOWERS, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Hugh B. Blowers, Deceased; and Naeyo F. Blowers, Plaintiffs, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant. No. CIV.00-0008ACK/FIY. United States District Court, D. Hawaii. June 13, 2000. Roy K.S. Chang, Shim Tam Kirimitsu Kitamura & Chang, Honolulu, HI, Arnold Anderson

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (“Barr”), in December 1995, filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) under the Hatch-Waxman Act, see 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) (1994), seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to market fluoxetine hydrochloride as an antidepressant. Flu-oxetine hydrochloride is the active ingredient in Eli Lilly and Company’s (“Lilly’s”) antide

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the refusal to reconsider the case en banc. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, vacated the panel’s prior opinion issued on August 9, 2000 and returned the case to the panel for further consideration. The panel now again holds claim 7 of the '549 (Molloy) patent invalid for double patenting, but this time it bases that determination on a different pat

ORDER ANN ALDRICH, District Judge. On September 22, 1994, the plaintiffs filed a motion (Doc. # 117) that this action be maintained as a class action. For the reasons stated below, this Court hereby denies plaintiffs’ motion. I. This action is brought by a number of women who claim they have suffered damage to their reproductive systems due to their expos

*798OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff, whose wife allegedly suffered certain injuries to her reproductive system due to her in útero exposure to the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES), commenced this action against defendants, several manufacturers of DES, assertin

Opinion of the Court EVERETT, Chief Judge: A general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members found, contrary to appellant’s pleas, that between February 20 and May 31, 1983, Lilly had committed offenses of rape, attempted rape, burglary, and indecent assault in violation of Articles 120, 80, 129, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 880, 929, and 934, resp

129 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 361 (1989) 565 A.2d 852 BOROUGH OF EDGEWORTH, a municipal corporation v. Arthur LILLY, Catherine Russo, BHM Company, Exxon Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation and Albert J. Veshio. Appeal of Arthur LILLY. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued October 2, 1989. Decided November 3, 1989. Reargument D

690 F.Supp. 857 (1988) Julie L. BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant. No. CV87-L-471. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. August 5, 1988. *858 Royce E. Norman, Kelley, Scritsmier, Moore & Byrne, North Platte, Neb., for plaintiffs. Stephen E. Scheve, and Scott W. Sayler, Shook, Hardy &am;

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID L. PIESTER, United States Magistrate. The defendant in this matter has filed a motion to compel discovery, seeking an order requiring the plaintiff Julie L. Brown and her mother, Elbe Kirkpatrick, to execute general medical authorizations for the release of medical information concerning their complete medical histories. Alternatively, defendant seeks an order precluding plainti

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Humphreys, Russell and AtLee Argued by videoconference PUBLISHED NORMAN L. BLOWE, JR. OPINION BY v. Record No. 0680-19-4 JUDGE WESLEY G. RUSSELL, JR. OCTOBER

Affirmed and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed August 4, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00343-CV VINCENT LILLY, Appellant V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BILL PIERCE, Appellees On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria Count

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 13-11-00281-CV IN RE SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP, ET AL. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 13-11-00087-CV SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP, ET AL., Appellants, v. YARTO INTERNATIONAL GROUP, L.P. AND YIG-GP, LLC, Appellees,

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 3, 2004 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIE NORMAN Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Gibson County No. 16224 Clayburn Peeples, Judge No. W2003-02067-CCA-R3-CD - Filed October 7, 2004 Defendant, Willie Norman, was indicted for possession of over .5 grams of coca

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED December 7, 2015 Norman Ratliff, Jr., RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK

Opinion filed February 9, 2012 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-10-00066-CR __________ NORMAN LEE DUNN, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal f

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE SAYLOR, District Judge. This is an action for a declaratory judgment that plaintiff TomTom, Inc. has not infringed three patents owned by defendant Norman IP Holdings, LLC. TomTom is a Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business in Concord, Massachusetts. Norman is a Texas limited liability company with a

Opinion filed February 9, 2012 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals

By Judge Mark S. Davis This matter is before the Court on the Special Plea of the Statute of Limitations of defendants Churchland Psychiatric Associates, Inc., and E. Daniel Kay, M.D., as well as a Motion to Limit Recovery by the same parties. The factual and procedural background for these motions, discussion of the issues, and conclusions are set forth below.1

625 F.3d 422 (2010) Judy R. NORMAN-NUNNERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MADISON AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE, Carol Bassett, William Stryker and Jackie Thomas, Defendants-Appellees. No. 09-1757. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued September 22, 2009. Decided November 8, 2010. *424 Robert J. Gingras, Pau

649 A.2d 1055 (1994) Earl Dean LILLY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 120, 1993. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: September 13, 1994. Decided: November 28, 1994. Louis B. Ferrara, Aerenson, Ferrara & Lyons, Wilmington, for appellant. Gary A. Myers (argued), Dept. of Justice, Georgetown