Cases

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GUST, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. ALPHACAP VENTURES, LLC, RICHARD JUAREZ, Defendants GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP, Movant-Appellant ______________________ 2017-2414 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Distri

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 46949 TECH LANDING, LLC, an Idaho limited ) liability company, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) Boise, August 2020 Term v. ) ) Opinion Filed: March 23, 2021

373 F.Supp.2d 829 (2005) DECATUR VENTURES, LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Company, and Trent D. Decatur, an individual, Plaintiffs, Triage Realty Investment, Inc., an Indiana Corporation; Jamie K. Goetz, an individual; Tonya S. (Blythe) Harvey, an individual; and Mona Orkoulas, an individual, Intervenor Plaintiffs, v. STAPLETON VENTURES, INC., an Indiana Corporation; Novastar Home Mortgage, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Michael W. Stapleto

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE SAM GLASSCOCK III STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947 Date Submitted: September 20, 2017 Date Decided: December 21, 2017 Richard E. Berl

FILED 14-0797 1/7/2015 4:47:38 PM tex-3688319 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLE

MEMORANDUM & ORDER RICHARD OWEN, District Judge. Pro se Plaintiff Kenneth F. Phillips (“Plaintiff’ or “Phillips”) brings claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and breach of fiduciary duties against Reed Group, LTD (“the LTD”), Reed Group, LLC (“the LLC”), Stacey Grace (“Grace”), Presley Reed (“Reed”), and

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1269, -1286 EDWARD H. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AWH CORPORATION, HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., and LOFTON CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross Appellants. Carl F. M

527 F.Supp.2d 661 (2007) Adrienne BRADLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY d/b/a/ Phillips Chemical Company, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. H-05-3912. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. December 18, 2007. *662 *663 Grover G. Hankins, The Hankins

N0. 01-14-01004-CV IN THE FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS FIRST COURT OF APPEAL HOUSTON, TEXAS AT HOUSTON 10/22/2015 4:44:20 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE ___________________________ Clerk Kevin CAMPBELL,

184 Cal.App.4th 313 (2010) FRANKLIN MINT COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP, et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B190482. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four. May 3, 2010. *319 Loeb & Loeb, Andrew S. Clare, Lawrence B. Gutcho; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer

FIRST DIVISION BARNES, P. J., LAND and WATKINS, 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 October

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 17 2016, 8:37 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collate

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON, in which Chief Judge MICHEL and Circuit Judges CLEVENGER, RADER, SCHALL, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, and PROST join; and in which Circuit Judge LOURIE joins with respect to parts I, II, III, V, and VI; *1309and in which Circuit Judge PAULINE NEWMAN joins with respect to parts I, II, III, and V. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed b

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Gerald Bruce Lee, United States District Judge THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiffs’ National Council for Adoption, Building Arizona Families, on behalf of itself and its birth-parent clients, birth parents D.V. and J.L., and baby boy T.W. by and through his guardian ad litem Philip (Jay) McCarthy, Jr.’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Summary Judgment on the Admini

ORDER G. MURRAY SNOW, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendant Lisa Borodkin’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 102) Xcentric’s Verified First Amended Complaint (Doc. 55). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is granted.1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, LLC is an Arizona company that operates the website www.

[Cite as Murfey v. Muth, 2025-Ohio-1184.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA SPENCER L. MURFEY, III, ET AL., : Plaintiffs-Appellants, : No. 114212 v. : MARIA G. MUTH, ET AL., :

Boggs, Judge. These appeals arise out of a failed real estate venture and the resulting protracted litigation between numerous parties, including the filing of a lis pendens. In this separate claim by an assignee against the law firm that filed the lis pendens, we conclude that the trial court correctly found preemption under the exclusivity provision of the abusive litigation statute, OCGA § 51-7-85, because the lawsuit seeks

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7354 Doc: 71 Filed: 01/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 13 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. RODERICK LAMAR WILLIAMS, a/k/a Rox, Defendant – Appellan

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On January 24, 2013, plaintiff YYZ, LLC (“plaintiff’) filed a patent infringement action against defendant Hewlett-Packard Company1 (“HP”) and against defendants Adobe Systems, Inc.2 (“Adobe”) and Pega-systems Inc.3 (“Pegasystems”) (collectively wi

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 1) DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND ANY SIMILAR THEORIES AND 2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNDER STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY (“QUASI”-RESIPSA) KEVIN S.C. CHANG, United States Magistrate Judge.