Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1563 ___________________________ Nicolas Valadez Rey, Individually, and as Next Friends; Jessica Leanne Quinn, Individually, and as Next Friends Plaintiffs - Appellants v.

OMNIBUS ORDER ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion from Protective Order [D.E. 111], Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendants’ Compliance With Local Rule 26.1 [D.E. 126], Plaintiffs Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Defendant John M. O’Quinn’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Request for Admissions [D.E. 128], Plaintiffs Motio

PRYOR, Circuit Judge: The main issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed several claims of Daewoo Motor America, Inc., against General Motors Corporation, Suzuki Motor Corporation, American Suzuki Motor Corporation, and GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. (GMDAT) on the ground of international comity. Daewoo America complained that its legal rights, as the exclusiv

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. After working for Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) for nearly twenty years, Howard Fleishman suffered a brain aneurism that required him to intermittently miss work from 2003 to 2005. Following his medical problems, he continued to work on workers’ compensation claims as a staff attorney and was assigned to a new group that handled high-value ca

676 F.3d 144 (2012) ROSETTA STONE LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. The UK Intellectual Property Law Society, Amicus Curiae, Eric Goldman; Public Citizen; Martin Schwimmer, Limited Intervenors. International Trademark Association; Blues Destiny Records, LLC; Carfax, Incorporated; Ford Motor Company; Harmon International Industries, Incorporated; the Media Institute; Viacom, Inc.; Burlington Coat F

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: In this case we review a district court’s entry of summary judgment in an antitrust suit on the basis of the plaintiffs’ lack of standing. Because we conclude that appellant Hillis Motors, Inc., has standing to bring this action, we reverse. 1. BACKGROUND In June 1984 Hillis Motors, Inc., an automobile dealership, voluntarily filed a petition for relief under

633 So.2d 707 (1993) Michael O'QUINN v. POWER HOUSE SERVICES, INC., et al., American Empire Surplus Insurance Co., d/b/a American Empire Insurance Co., J. Pat Price, J.H. Jenkins, CNA Insurance Companies and Jenkins Construction Co. No. 93 CA 0277. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. December 29, 1993. *708 Mark R. Wolfe

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1066 This case arises out of a cause of action filed by plaintiff General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) against defendant Lula Stoval, seeking the entry of a replevin order to recover an automobile and damages for breach of contract. GMAC appeals from orders of the circuit court granting judgment in favor

FOURTH DIVISION June 29, 2007 No. 1-06-1858 GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, ) Appeal from ) the Circuit Court Plaintiff-Appellant, ) of Cook County. )

12 F.Supp.2d 1035 (1998) ISUZU MOTORS LIMITED, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONSUMERS UNION OF UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant. No. CV 97-5686 RAP RNBX. United States District Court, C.D. California. April 9, 1998. *1036 *1037 *1038 *

850 F.Supp. 1095 (1994) MAIER-SCHULE GMC, INC., Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (GMC TRUCK AND BUS GROUP), Volvo White Truck Corporation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, Buffalo Truck Sales & Service, Inc., Thage Berggren, Kenneth Kaczmarek, Richard B. Gurley, Nicholas Bodnar, and Thomas B. Bowen, Defendants. No. 87-CV-1514S. United States District Court, W.D. New York.

437 A.2d 623 (1981) AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. et al. v. Rodney S. QUINN, et al. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued November 18, 1981. Decided December 1, 1981. *625 Murray, Plumb & Murray, John C. Lightbody (orally), John C. Bannon, Thomas C. Newman, Portland, for plaintiffs. William C. Nugent (orally),

48 B.R. 367 (1985) Paul G. QUINN, as Trustee of The Estate of Life Imaging Corporation, formerly known as Life Instruments Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Debtor, Plaintiff, v. CGR, a company incorporated in France, Defendant. No. 85-K-154. United States District Court, D. Colorado, Civil Division. April 16, 1985. *368 Howar

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, No. 19-16122 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 5:17-cv-00220- LHK QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, A Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant, OPINION SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR IN

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, No. 19-16122 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 5:17-cv-00220- LHK QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, A Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant, OPINION SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR IN

OPINION OF THE COURT BECKER, Chief Judge. This is an extremely complicated motor vehicle dealer franchise termination case marked by disputes over what is known in the industry as “dualing,” i.e., the acquisition by an automobile franchisee of a franchise of a different manufacturer. This case comes before us on appeal from a series of orders entered by

Reversed and Rendered and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed November 3, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-10-01061-CV DIAMOND OFFSHORE (BERMUDA), LTD., Appellant V. SUZANNE ELISABETH HAAKSMAN, AS BENEFICIARY OF ROBERT DUNCAN BURN QUINN, AND THOMAS JOSEPH MCCARTNEY, Appellees

Third Division March 29, 2002 No. 1-99-4471 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., ) Appeal from the assignee of GENERAL AUTOMATION, INC., ) Circuit Court ) of Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 97 L 5050 ) AMERI

KUNTZ, J. Rolls-Royce, PLC moves for rehearing directed to our opinion affirming the circuit court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We agree that the court erred by denying its motion without holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact. As a result, we grant the motion for rehearing in part, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute this opinion in its place. In our holding,

768 N.E.2d 352 (2002) 329 Ill. App.3d 686 263 Ill.Dec. 592 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., assignee of General Automation, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee. No. 1-99-4471. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division. March 29, 2002. <