Cases

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 21), THE COMMONWEALTH’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 24), AND MARK LEAHY’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 29) HILLMAN, District Judge. Alfred Morin (Plaintiff) brings a Second Amendment challenge to a Massachusetts statute that prevents the issuance of a Class A license to carry firearms to individuals wh

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Dr. Alfred Morin (“Morin”) applied to renew his Class A License to Carry (“Class A License”). 1 Mark Leahy (“Le-ahy”), Chief of Police of the Town of Northborough, denied Morin’s application, because Morin’s two prior convictions for firearms-related misdemeanors barred him from obtaining a Cla

453 F.Supp.2d 177 (2006) Gayle MORIN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. No. CV-05-178-B-W. United States District Court, D. Maine. September 19, 2006. *178 Andrews B. Campbell, Thomaston, ME, for Plaintiff. Christopher C. Dinan, John J. Wall, III, Monaghan Leahy, LLP, Portland, ME, for Defendan

453 F.Supp.2d 173 (2006) Gayle MORIN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. No. CV-05-178-B-W. United States District Court, D. Maine. September 19, 2006. *174 Andrews B. Campbell, Campbell Law Offices, Waldoboro, ME, for Plaintiff. Christopher C. Dinan, John J. Wall, III, Monaghan Leahy, LLP, Port

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 20-1280 ALFRED MORIN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. WILLIAM LYVER, in his official capacity as Northborough Chief of Police, and THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

96 N.H. 485 (1951) AMEDE MORIN v. CHARLES H. HOOD. No. 3983. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. March 6, 1951. *486 Russell H. McGuirk for the plaintiff. Guertin & Leahy (Mr. Guertin orally), for the defendant. LAMPRON, J. The defendant having proceeded with the introduction of evidence

PLAGER, Circuit Judge. Introduction This case, Versata II, is a companion to Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 20141194 (“Versata I ”). The cases were consolidated for argument purposes, but are decided separately. For the detailed background and facts, see the opinion i

STARK, U.S District Judge MorphoSys, Inc. ("MorphoSys" or "Plaintiff") sued Janssen Biotech, Inc., Genmab US, Inc., and Genmab A/S (together, "Janssen" or "Defendants") for infringement of three patents on antibodies that bind to the CD38 protein. (D.I. 205) Pending before the Court are summary judgment motions filed by both sides. Janssen moves for summary judgment of (1) non-infringement of the "human" antibody claims (D.I. 384) a

Parker, J. This is an action of contract to recover a $1,000.00 deposit under a real estate agreement. The agreement is dated 13 January 1958. Title was to pass 31 July 1938. The plaintiff agreed to buy and the defendant to sell a lot of land with a single family frame dwelling to be built thereon in Stoneham. The agreement contained the following: “The Seller guarantees a dry base-

Opinion for the court filed by NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Dissenting in part opinion filed by WALLACH, Circuit Judge. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. Elcommerce.com, Inc. is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,947,903 (“the '903 patent”), directed to a system and method of monitoring a supply chain of components in order to coordinate and stabilize the supply of components from various producer

DYK, Circuit Judge. Cordis Corporation appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting Abbott Laboratories’ motion to quash two subpoenas duces tecum issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 24. We conclude that section 24 only empowers a district court to issue a subpoena for use in a “contested case,” and

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE, in which Circuit Judge MOORE joins except as to Parts II-A-2 and II-B-2, and in which Circuit Judge O’MALLEY joins except as to Parts II-A-1 and II-B-1. Opinion concurring in part filed by Circuit Judge MOORE. Opinion concurring in part filed by Circuit Judge O’MALLEY. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Johnson & Johnson and

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ELCOMMERCE.COM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAP AG AND SAP AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ______________________ 2011-1369 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in No. 09-CV-4458,

Fried, J. The trial judge failed to conduct a colloquy with the defendant before accepting a waiver of his right to trial by jury tendered by his counsel. The Appeals Court ruled that in the particular circumstances of this case the omission was harmless and affirmed the convictions, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 490 (1995). We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review and reverse the judgments of the Superior Court.<

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Appellant v. SAP AMERICA, INC., SAP AG, Appellees UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor ______________________ 2014-1194

970 F.Supp. 183 (1997) Herbert WASSERMAN, Plaintiff, v. MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER, Joseph Cunningham, Barry Spero, Sol Ciprut, Jacob Solome, Gilbert Wise, Joyce Leahy, Joel Horovitz, Enrico Ascer, and Shiela Namm, Defendants. No. 95 CV 5357(SJ). United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 18, 1997. *184

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 16 In the Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc., &c. Facebook, Inc., Appellant, v. New York County District Attorney's Office, Respondent. (And Another Proceeding.) Thomas H. Dupree, Jr., for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., for respondent. New York Ci

Opinion MORENO, J. An Alameda County jury convicted Michael James Huggins of one count each of murder (Pen. Code, § 187),1 burglary (§ 459), and robbery (§211). The jury found true the special circumstance allegations that defendant committed the murder in the course of, or immediate flight from, burglary, robbery, and rape or attempted

Banks, J. This is an action in tort to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a fall on the defendant’s business premises. The matter was brought in the Waltham Division of the District Court. The reported evidence indicates that: On September 26,1980, the plaintiff was an invitee in the defendant’s department store. As the plaintiff was entering the store, the door “came back and

110 N.H. 70 (1969) DORIS McCARTHY SCHNEIDER v. WILLIAM C. SCHNEIDER. No. 5898. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. December 30, 1969. Robert D. Marshall (by brief and orally), for the plaintiff. Devine, Millimet, McDonough, Stahl & Branch and Robert A. Backus (Mr. Backus orally), for the defendant. LAMPRON, J. The pla