Cases

14 F.Supp.2d 154 (1998) THE YANKEE CANDLE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. NEW ENGLAND CANDLE COMPANY, INC., Henry Komosa, and Kristine Komosa, Defendants. No. Civ.A. 96-30165-FHF. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 21, 1998. *155 Mary R. Bonzagni, Law Offices of Donald S. Holland, Longmeadow, MA, Donald S. Holland,

470 F.Supp. 798 (1979) WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY and Central Power and Light Company v. TEXAS ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY and Houston Lighting and Power Company. No. CA3-76-633-F. United States District Court, N. D. Texas, Dallas Division. January 30, 1979. Order Filed May 15, 1979. *799

[Cite as Petty v. Lorain, 2024-Ohio-2110.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) GARON F. PETTY C.A. No. 23CA011995 Appellant v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE CITY OF

Hon. Patti B. Saris, Chief United States District Judge *253INTRODUCTION Intellectual Ventures I, LLC and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC (collectively, "IV") bring this patent infringement action alleging that Defendant EMC Corporation ("EMC") infringes claim 11 of

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appellants Jose Luis Rodriguez-Martinez (“Rodríguez”) and Joel Santini-Men-dez (“Santini”) were sentenced in the United States District Court of Puerto Rico to terms of eighty-eight months and seventy months, respectively, for aiding and abetting the attempted possession of narcotics with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and aiding and

[Cite as State v. Harrington, 2018-Ohio-2088.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 16CA010961 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE JEANNE HARRINGTON

662 F.3d 1073 (2011) Mohammad MIRMEHDI; Mostafa Mirmehdi; Mohsen Mirmehdi; Mojtaba Mirmehdi, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; Mario Lopez; John Ashcroft; Robert S. Mueller, III; James W. Ziglar; Michael Garcia, Esquire; Christopher Castillo; James MacDowell, Defendants-Appellees. No. 09-55846. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitte

Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Concurrence by Judge SILVERMAN. ORDER The opinion filed in this case on November 3, 2011, and reported at 662 F.3d 1073, is hereby amended. An amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. With this amendment, the panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges O’Scannlain and Silverman have voted to deny the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and Judg

GUSTAVO A. GELPÍ* , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the court are the defendants Harold Esquilin-Montanez and James Stewart-Carrasquillo's motions for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Dockets No. 243, 245) and the government's response thereto (Docket No. 247). After carefully considering the parties' arguments, the court DENIES

[Cite as J.B. v. Harford, 2015-Ohio-13.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) J.B. C.A. No. 27231 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE DAVID H. HARFORD

F. Dennis Saylor IV, United States District Judge This is a patent dispute concerning a pharmaceutical product: abuse-deterrent, extended-release oxycodone. Plaintiffs Purdue Pharma L.P.; The P.F. Laboratories, Inc.; Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.; and Rhodes Technologies (collectively, "Purdue") have brought suit against Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. The amended complaint asserts claims for infringement of three related patents pursu

[Cite as State v. Roy, 2014-Ohio-5186.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 13CA010404 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE SOMNATH ROY

The SAC alleges that, beginning in 1997, Gamble worked in Kaiser's Human Resources department. Gamble alleges that she was denied promotions and subjected to a pattern and practice of discrimination, despite her qualifications and excellent performance. (SAC ¶ 44.) She alleges she also was subjected to harassment and unreasonable scrutiny by the person who began supervising her in July 2012, Rosa Grajeda. (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.) Gamble asserts that Grajeda

NUMBER 13-19-00491-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG PROTOTYPE MACHINE COMPANY, Appellant, v. TOLEDO P. BOULWARE, ET AL., Appellees. On appeal from the

OPINION AND ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Patricia J. Ritchie (“Plaintiff’) filed the instant Complaint against Ricardo Brown (“Brown”); Robert Taylor (“Taylor”); John Does 1-50 (“John Doe Defendants”) (collectively, “Individual Defendants”); Lease Finance Group, LLC (“LFG”); and Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. (“NLS”) (collectively, “Corporate Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

RULING ON DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN CAMERA MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge. Plaintiffs, two community groups based in New Haven, filed this action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., to obtain documents from the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), an investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), following a federa

NUMBER 13-06-076-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

NUMBER 13-06-076-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG BALDEMAR SAENZ, III, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal f

59 Cal.Rptr.3d 340 (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1311 EFUND CAPITAL PARTNERS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert PLESS et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. B193575. Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Five. May 21, 2007. *341 Quintana Law Group, Andres F. Quintana, John M. Houkom and Danie

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 864 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 865 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT