Cases

MEMORANDUM DECISION BRICCETTI, District Judge: Plaintiffs Rosemary Quinn and Alan Ducorsky bring this putative class action on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated individuals who purchased from defendant Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens”) certain dietary supplements that claim to “help rebuild cartilage.” Plaintiffs allege these products do not perform as advertised because it is, in fact, impossi

871 N.E.2d 905 (2007) Joann CRUMPTON, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Christina Crumpton, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALGREEN COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 1-06-0734. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division. June 29, 2007. *907 A. Denison Weaver, Ltd., Chicago (A. Denison We

813 F.Supp.2d 897 (2011) Chandra EVANS, Plaintiff, v. WALGREEN COMPANY, Defendant. No. 09-2491. United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division. August 25, 2011. *906 Darrell J. O'Neal, Law Office of Darrell J. O'Neal, Memphis, TN, Aubrey Pittman, Kristin Kay Schroeder, The Pittman Law Firm, P.C., Dallas, TX, for P

605 F.3d 1239 (2010) Aaron L. HOWARD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WALGREEN CO., d.b.a. Walgreens Pharmacy, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 09-11823, 09-12286. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. May 13, 2010. *1240 Courtney B. Wilson, Littler Mendelson Miami, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant. Donald R. McCoy, Don

FOURTH DIVISION June 29, 2007 No. 1-06-0734 JOANN CRUMPTON, as Special Administrator of ) Appeal from the Estate of Christina Crumpton, Deceased, ) the Circuit Court ) Of Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellant,

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 17‐2564 QUINN R. HEATH, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. INDIANAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant‐Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for th

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 17‐2564 QUINN R. HEATH, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. INDIANAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant‐Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for th

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 17‐2564 QUINN R. HEATH, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. INDIANAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant‐Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for th

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Quinn, 2012 IL App (4th) 110398 Appellate Court MORR-FITZ, INC., an Illinois Corporation, d/b/a FITZGERALD Caption PHARMACY, Licensed and Practicing in the State of Illinois as a Pharmacy; L. DOYLE, INC., an Illinois Corporation, d/b/a EGGELSTON PHARMACY, L

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), for judicial review of the denial of long-term disability benefits. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgme

On the evidence in this case — the evidence was without dispute on all controlling points — did there arise against appellant the inference of negligence as the proximate cause of Mrs. Shivers' injury? Mr. Justice O'QUINN has prepared the opinion of the court answering this question in the affirmative. On the undisputed facts, it must be said that the construction of the platform and the stools was open and obvious to all who had occasion to use them, and that Mrs. Shivers

DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge. On April 20, 2016, Brad Buonasera (“Buonasera”) filed an amended complaint (“Amended Complaint”) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), alleging four causes of action against The Honest Company, Inc. (“Honest”): (1) violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 (“Section 349”); (2) viola

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Plaintiffs Jennifer O'Neill ("O'Neill") and Tricia Zamfino ("Zamfino") bring the instant Complaint, on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, alleging that they were injured by paying for unsafe products that have since been voluntarily removed from the marketplace by Defendants Standard Homeopathic Company ("Standard") and Hyland's, Inc. ("Hyland's"), and which are no longer available

LILES C. BURKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Lincoln National Life Insurance Co.'s ("Lincoln") and Plaintiff Alexander Harris's cross motions for Summary Judgment. (respectively Doc. 40, & 28), and Lincoln's former motion for summary judgment (Doc. 12) which has now been superseded. This action involves an employer provided insurance policy and is subject to the Employee Retirement

SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS, Judge. h Sharon Tomlinson (“Mrs. Tomlinson”) appeals the trial court judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Daisy Dukes Restaurant, LLC (“Daisy Dukes”) and its insurer Landmark American Insurance Company (“Landmark”). First, we find that' there is no factual support that Daisy Dukes intentionally destroyed evidence for the purpose of depriving Mrs. Tomlinson of its use at tria

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW • [PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION] LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge On May 5, 2014, after a thirteen-day trial and approximately four days of deliberation, a jury in this patent case reached a verdict. ECF No. 1884. On May 23, 2014, Apple filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, amended j

OPINION AND ORDER JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: This action arises out of an insurance coverage dispute between Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) and Defendant The Fairbanks Company. The Fairbanks Company is a manufacturing company that has been named in several lawsuits alleging injuries from exposure to asbestos. Liberty Mutual is one of seven insurance companies

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART W.S. DARLEY & CO. ’S RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS [15] JAMES F. HOLDERMAN, Chief Judge. On March 16, 2012, plaintiff Al Maha Trading & Contracting Holding Company (“Al Maha”) filed a twelve-count complaint against defendant W.S. Darley & Co. (“Darley”), seeking damages and equitable remedies resulting from

ORDER VANESSA D. GILMORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court are Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”)’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (Instrument No. 112) and Uber’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Instrument No. 129). I. FACTUAL SUMMARY & PROCEDURAL POSTURE A. Statement of the Case

ORDER RE: INDEFINITENESS LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. In this patent case, a jury found that Samsung had infringed several of Apple’s patents, including Claim 50 of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,168 (“the '163 Patent”) and four design patents: No. D618,677 (“the D'677 Patent”); No. D593,087 (“the D'087 Patent”); No. D604,305 (“the D'305 Patent”); and No. D504,889 (“the D'889 Patent”). Samsung now argues that Clai