Cases

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. 3M sued TransWeb for infringement of several patents. TransWeb sued for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of the patents. A jury found the patents to be invalid based on Tran-sWeb’s prior public use of the patented method. In accordance with an advisory verdict from the jury, the district court found the patents unenforceable due to

HORTON, J. The defendant, 3M National Advertising Company, Inc., appeals an eminent domain decision by the Superior Court (Conboy, J.), reducing the awards of the board of tax and land appeals (BTLA). The defendant argues that the trial court failed to award just compensation *362by: (1) not employing one of three generally recognized methods of appraisal valuati

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1391 DOROTHY E. SMITH, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Julian Jackson Smith, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCHLAGE LOCK COMPANY, LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and AMETEK, INC., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Haveg

FILED IN NO. 13-212 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk TAMI L. WOLE'F, C.S.R. PHONE: (830) 331-8286 NO. 13-212 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) VS . ) 216TH JUD

756 F.Supp.2d 782 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. RUTHERFORD OIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. G-08-0231. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. August 31, 2010. *783 John David Gunter, T. Monique Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Paul Alexander Petty, U.S

MEMORANDUM OPINION NORMAN K. MOON, District Judge. This action arises out of the decision by Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (“Defendant” or “LINA”) to deny benefits claimed by Plaintiff Catherine Weber (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Weber”) under two Accidental Death and Dismemberment (“AD & D”) policies of insurance issued by LINA and carried by her deceased husband, Carl Weber

MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Vincent Forras bring this action against Defendants Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Adam Leitman Bailey to recover damages for defamation, false light, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Before

(2008) Earl D. OSBORNE, Jr., Plaintiff v. The Honorable Charles E. KING, Jr., The Honorable Paul Zakaib, Jr., The Honorable Tod J. Kaufman, The Honorable James C. Stucky, The Honorable Herman C. Canady, Jr., The Honorable Irene C. Berger, The Honorable Louis H. Bloom, Judges, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Kanawha County, West Virginia, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:02-1250. United States District Court

2022 WI 15 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2019AP1671 COMPLETE TITLE: Cree, Inc., Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, Respondent-Co-Appellant, Derrick Palmer,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Defendant Royal Norwegian Embassy’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 130]. Defendant submitted a supporting memorandum [Doc. No. 132], three affidavits [Doc. Nos. 133-135], and seven declarations [Doc. Nos. 136-37]. Plaintiff submitted an opposition memorandum [D

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILLIAM RICHARD KRUSE, ) individually and as TRUSTEE for THE ) VIVIAN CALVERT KRUSE LIVING ) TRUST and THE WILLIAM ) RICHARD KRUSE LIVING TRUST, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 12392-VCS ) SYNA

BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION The matter before the Court is Defendants Highmark Health, Highmark Inc., and Highmark Choice Company's (collectively "Highmark") second motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Presque Isle Colon and Rectal Surgery ("Plaintiff") instituted this action against Highmark alleging in its original complaint that Highmark violated Sections 1 and 2 of

140 F.Supp.2d 1019 (2001) Anthony J. BAUER and Ann M. Bauer, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, John Doe I—John Doe X, Defendants. No. Civ. 00-389(DSD/JGL). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. April 23, 2001. *1020 Paul A. Sortland, Sortland Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiffs. Vernle C. Durocher, Jr

739 F.Supp.2d 1063 (2010) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT INTEGRATION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 09-CV-4008. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. September 13, 2010. *1067 Caesar A. Tabet, Jon Jeffrey Patton, Reema Kapur, Tabet Divito & Rothstein LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaint

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“Chase”) Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [115] (the “Motion”), requesting that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of Chase on all claims. The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the record, all supporting and opposing filings, the exh

2016 WI 63 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2014AP2488-CR COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Timothy L. Finley, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

ACCEPTED 15-25-00051-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/21/2025 6:22 PM NO. 15-25-00051-CV CHRISTOPHER A.

591 F.Supp. 552 (1984) Freemont GOODBAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WHITEHEAD BROTHERS, et al., Defendants. James W. BEALE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WHITEHEAD BROTHERS, et al., Defendants. James B. BARRETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WHITEHEAD BROTHERS, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. Nos. 82-0160-L, 83-0014-L and 83-0111-L, No. C/P No. 83-2. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Lynch

782 N.W.2d 848 (2010) 279 Neb. 661 SMEAL FIRE APPARATUS CO., a Nebraska corporation, appellee and cross-appellant, v. Robert KREIKEMEIER and R.K. Manufacturing, Inc., appellants and cross-appellees. No. S-08-1230. Supreme Court of Nebraska. April 16, 2010. *855 Thomas B. Thomsen, of Sidner, Svoboda, Schilk

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Corporate Conduct Experts (ECF No. 2819), Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 3198), and Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion (ECF No. 3556). In accordance with this Opinion and Order, for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN P