Cases

*723MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. The Plaintiff, Optimus Communications (“Optimus”), commenced this action on May 23, 2011, alleging that the Defendant, MPG Associates, Inc. (“MPG”), violated the terms and conditions of a commission agreement by soliciting business from present and former customers of the Plaintiff and failin

618 S.E.2d 612 (2005) 274 Ga. App. 632 BROADCAST CONCEPTS, INC. v. OPTIMUS FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC. No. A05A0602. Court of Appeals of Georgia. July 6, 2005. Reconsideration Denied July 27, 2005. *613 Michael S. Welsh, Chad K. Reed, John D. Stuart, Norcross, for appellant. Sutherland

FIFTH DIVISION BARNES, P. J., REESE, P. J., and COLVIN, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS

FIRST DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MARKLE and HODGES, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules June 4, 2026

708 S.E.2d 17 (2011) SIERRA-CORRAL HOMES, LLC v. POURREZA. No. A10A2066. Court of Appeals of Georgia. February 22, 2011. Reconsideration Denied March 18, 2011. *18 Bryant & Oakes, Craig S. Oakes, Suwanee, for appellant. Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, Jeffrey H. Schneider, Atlanta, for appellee.</

630 S.E.2d 416 (2006) 278 Ga. App. 599 U.S. MICRO CORPORATION v. ATLANTIX GLOBAL SYSTEMS, LLC et al. ATLANTIX GLOBAL SYSTEMS, LLC et al. v. U.S. Micro Corporation. Nos. A05A2130, A05A2131. Court of Appeals of Georgia. March 30, 2006. *417 Davidson & Tucker, Gerald Davidson, Jr., Duluth, Eps

FOURTH DIVISION DILLARD, P. J., MERCIER, J., and SENIOR JUDGE FULLER NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules January 30

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT (Docket No. 304) EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation— eighteen (18) individuals from thirteen different states — have filed a second consolidated amended complaint (“SCAC” or

821 F.Supp. 1278 (1993) CASS COUNTY MUSIC COMPANY, Red Cloud Music Company, Jobete Music Co., Inc., Brockman Enterprises Inc., Colgems-EMI Music Inc., Stephen Mitchell Music, Anidraks Music, and Impulsive Music, Plaintiffs, v. VASFI MUEDINI d/b/a Port Town Family Restaurant, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 92-C-706. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. April 7, 1993. <

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs, Cass County Music Company and seven other music publishers, appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Vasfi Muedi-ni, a defaulting party. 1 At this court’s request, the law firm of Willian Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione submitted an amicus cu

FOURTH DIVISION DILLARD, P. J., RICKMAN and PIPKIN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules Octobe

754 F.Supp. 1324 (1990) BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUES, INC. d/b/a Claire's Boutiques and Arcadia, Defendant. No. 90 C 3881. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 28, 1990. *1325 Robert G. Krupka, P.C., Nicole J. Klimisch, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff Br

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge. When must the corporate owner of a chain of retail stores pay copyright license fees for playing radio broadcasts in its stores? Plaintiffs Broadcast Music, Incorporated (“BMI”) and various named song publishers 1 sued defendant Claire’s Boutiques, Incorporated (“Claire’s”) for violating copyr

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge This action arises from a patent infringement dispute between On Track Innovations Ltd. (“OTI”), a developer of virtual payment systems and the current owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,045,043 (“the ’043 patent”), and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”), a mobile network operator (“MNO”). OTI alleges that T-Mobile infringed the ’043 patent through its sale of ne