Cases

JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiffs, Jerry and Carol Reeder, operators of a Maryland Fried Chicken restaurant in Homer Township of Will County, Illinois, brought suit in the circuit court of Will County seeking to recover from numerous defendants for economic damages to their restaurant business

*628 SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Sue Ellen Moncrief, pro se, appeals a judgment of the district court granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing her claims of employment discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Moncrief argues that the district court erred by dismissing as untimely her failure to promote claim, and determining

*628 SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Sue Ellen Moncrief, pro se, appeals a judgment of the district court granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing her claims of employment discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Moncrief argues that the district court erred by dismissing as untimely her failure to promote claim, and determining

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 46A03-1207-MI-324 DAVID, Justice. Following the initiation of a derivative suit by sibling minority shareholders, TP Orthodontics’ board of directors formed a special litigation committee (the “SLC”) to investigate the derivative claims pursuant to Ind.Code § 23-1-32-4 (2007). After a year-long investigation, the SLC produced the report that

OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge. Retail Imaging Management Group, LLC (“RIMG”) brings a federal antitrust lawsuit against its competitor and supplier, Fujifilm North America Corporation (“FUJI”), alleging unlawful monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. RIMG also asserts claims of negligence and intentional interference

866 So.2d 1045 (2004) Robert B. KEATY, Thomas S. Keaty and Keaty and Keaty v. Roy A. RASPANTI. Robert B. Keaty, Thomas S. Keaty and Keaty & Keaty v. Roy A. Raspanti. Nos. 2003-CA-1080, 2003-CA-1499. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. February 4, 2004. Rehearing Denied March 15, 2004. *1047

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/INTERVENOR, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES, CHRISTOPHER KESLING, TP ORTHODONTICS, INC. DDS, MS, ADAM KESLING, and EMILY KESLING Sean M. Clapp Robert W. Wright Elizabeth M. Ellis Indianapolis, Indiana Fishers, Indiana Shaw R. Friedman LaPorte, Indiana

406 F.Supp.2d 1 (2005) Linda L. BORTELL, Plaintiff, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. Civ.A. 04-0954ESH. United States District Court, District of Columbia. October 20, 2005. *2 Aaron M. Levine, Aaron M. Levine & Associates, P.A., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Lawrence Hedrick Martin, Foley Hoag LLP, M

Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-4-2007 Broadcom Corp v. Qualcomm Inc Precedential or N

501 F.3d 297 (2007) BROADCOM CORPORATION, Appellant v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED. No. 06-4292. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued: June 28, 2007. Filed: September 4, 2007. *298 *299 *300 *301

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ════════════ No. 03-0737 ════════════

586 N.E.2d 1314 (1992) 224 Ill. App.3d 727 167 Ill.Dec. 42 F.L. WALZ, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOBART CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. No. 3-91-0284. Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District. January 30, 1992. *1316 Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Peoria, Tom Collins (ar

695 F.Supp.2d 925 (2010) Beverly Arlene MORAINE, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. Civil No. 08-5982 (JRT/RLE). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. March 8, 2010. *927 Beverly Arlene Moraine, St. Paul, MN, pro se. Lonnie Bryan, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Att

152 Ill. App.3d 323 (1987) 503 N.E.2d 1147 THOMAS M. KLUCZNIK et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOMMY NIKITOPOULOS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 2-86-0259. Illinois Appellate Court — Second District. Opinion filed February 3, 1987. *324 *325 Rory T. Weiler, of Elburn, for ap

157 Ill. App.3d 334 (1987) 510 N.E.2d 1248 F.L. WALZ, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOBART CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. No. 3-86-0504. Illinois Appellate Court — Third District. Opinion filed July 7, 1987. Rehearing denied August 12, 1987. *335 Timothy L. Bertschy, of Heyl, Royster, Vo

218 S.W.3d 671 (2006) The COCA-COLA COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. HARMAR BOTTLING COMPANY et al., Respondents. No. 03-0737. Supreme Court of Texas. Argued November 9, 2004. Decided October 20, 2006. Rehearing Denied May 4, 2007. *674 Robert Harrison Pemberton, Austin, Orrin L. Harrison III, Dav

143 Ill. App.3d 168 (1986) 491 N.E.2d 912 DRS. SELLKE & CONLON, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TWIN OAKS REALTY, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 84-1133. Illinois Appellate Court — Second District. Opinion filed April 10, 1986. *169 *170 Edward A. Cohen, Barr

McKAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The substantive burden of this case is the allocation of available gas supplies in the event of shortages. The establishment of a policy which creates the possibility of reliance on future uncertain supplies became the focal point of the dispute. The Commission entered an order which it later came to believe had created uncertainty among the industries which are competing users

MOSK, J. I dissent. Contrary to the principal holding of the Court of Appeal, the majority conclude that the complaint does not—in fact cannot—state a cause of action for conversion. I disagree with this conclusion for all the reasons *161stated by the Court of Appeal, and for additional reasons that I shall explain. For convenience I shall discuss the six

*605RODOWSKY, Judge. In this appeal we shall hold that an abusive discharge claim does not lie. The plaintiff alleges that her dismissal from employment was motivated by sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1982) and of Md.Code (1957, 1986