Cases

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA13-932) Denied Hunter, J., recused

620 F.Supp.2d 524 (2009) Lisa M. REILLY, Plaintiff, v. REVLON, INC., Robert C. Krasner, and Linda Piacentini, Defendants. No. 08-CV-0205 (CM). United States District Court, S.D. New York. May 12, 2009. *528 Evan S. Sarzin, Evan Sarzin, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Jonathan Marc Kozak, Jackson Lewis LLP, White Plains,

990 A.2d 940 (2010) In re REVLON, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION. C.A. No. 4578-VCL. Court of Chancery of Delaware. Submitted: March 5, 2010. Decided: March 16, 2010. *941 Seth D. Rigrodsky and Brian D. Long, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert M. Kornreich and Carl L. Stine, Wolf Popper, LLP, New York City,

85 F.Supp.2d 1293 (1999) Barton LEIT, Plaintiff, v. REVLON, INC., and First UNUM Life Insurance Company, Defendants. No. 97-8664-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, West Palm Beach Division. April 13, 1999. *1294 Lawrence W.R. Metsch, Metsch & Metsch, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff. Jeannine Cline Jacobson, Jay

746 A.2d 475 (2000) Francesca LOMBARDO, Appellant, v. REVLON, INC., Respondent. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued December 14, 1999. Decided February 25, 2000. *476 Edward P. Shamy, Jr., North Brunswick, for appellant. Lester S. Goldblatt, Metuchen, for respondent (James A. Hicks, on the brief).

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.), entered August 6, 1993, to the extent that it denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the first, second, fourth, fifth and part of the third causes of action in the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Plaintiff accepted a written offer of employment from defendant, dated J

*********** The undersigned has reviewed the submission of defendants. Deputy Commissioner Phillips' Order contained a finding that she did not receive a call from either counsel. However, due to evidence confirming Mr. Jones placed a phone call to the main Industrial Commission number and questionable circumstances surrounding the issue of where this call was transferred and voicemail messages regarding this matter, the Full Commission hereby

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 604 OPINION Revlon, Inc., appeals from a judgment in favor of Lyn McKinney for injuries caused by a hair frosting product manufactured by Revlon. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1988, McKinney, a registered nurse, purchased Revlon Frost and G

993 F.2d 1533 Barakv.Revlon, Inc. NO. 92-7845 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Apr 15, 1993 1 Appeal From: S.D.N.Y. 2 AFFIRMED.

789 F.Supp. 758 (1991) Deborah D. MADISON, Plaintiff, v. REVLON, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. J91-0170(L). United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division. August 20, 1991. *759 James W. Nobles, Jr., Mark L. Pearson, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff. J. Wyatt Hazard, Jackson, Miss., for defendant.

*515—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Santaella, J.), entered July 16, 1987, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed on the law and the motion granted, without costs. This is an action for breach of an employment contract and for wrongful discharge. Plaintiff was hired by the defendant in 1977 and, after a pro

843 F.2d 497 Toddv.Revlon, Inc.* NO. 87-1625 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. MAR 22, 1988 1 Appeal From: N.D.Tex. 2

713 F.Supp. 93 (1989) REVLON, INC., Plaintiff, v. JERELL, INC., Defendant. No. 89 Civ. 1042 (PKL). United States District Court, S.D. New York. May 11, 1989. *94 Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York City (Arthur J. Greenbaum and Richard S. Mandel, of counsel), for plaintiff. James and Franklin, New York City (Robe

MAYER, Chief Judge, dissenting. I would reverse. The court errs by reading the claim term “or” exclusively, while the district court appropriately read it inclusively when construing the claim. This is not a case of a species anticipating a genus, or of a combination claimed in the alternative. Instead, the Brown patent teaches an apparatus with additional functionality not disclosed in the allegedly anticipat

PER CURIAM. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects except for that portion awarding attorney’s fees to Revlon, Inc. and to Physician’s Reference Laboratories, Inc. Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1979) requires a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact. Autorico, Inc. v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 398 So.2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The posi

CAMERON, Justice. This is a petition for review of a memorandum decision of the court of appeals which reversed a trial court judgment in petitioner Leta Fay Ford’s favor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3), A.R.S. § 12-120.24 and Rule 23, Ariz.R.Civ.App.P., 17A A.R.S. We granted the petition for review to consider three questions raised by Ford. Because of the disposition of the ca

ORDER LATCHUM, District Judge. Having carefully considered plaintiff Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s motion (Docket Item [“D.I.”] 171), and memorandum in support of its motion (D.I. 172), defendants Rorer Group’s, Revlon’s, and Armour Pharmaceutical’s brief in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion (D.I. 174), plaintiff’s reply brief (D.I. 175), and the oral arguments of counsel, it is ORD

647 F.Supp. 905 (1986) REVLON, INC., A Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. CARSON PRODUCTS CO., a Georgia corporation, Defendant. No. 82 Civ. 4326 (IBC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. November 17, 1986. Wigman & Cohen, P.C. (Herbert Cohen, of counsel), Arlington, Va., for Revlon, Inc. Wyatt, Gerber, Shoup, Scobey & Badie (Bruce N. Proct

661 F.Supp. 262 (1987) REVLON, INC., Revlon International Corporation and Revlon Manufacturing (U.K.) Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. S. RAUCH MARKETING, INC., Stephen H. Marks, Garden State Maritime Services Corp., John Doe 1-6 and XYZ Corp., 1-5, said names John Doe and XYZ Corp. being fictitious, representing an unknown number of persons and corporations, the names of whom are presently unknown to Revlon, Defendants. No. 86 Civ. 310

OPINION LATCHUM, Senior District Judge. This Court has been faced with an intricate maze of motions which has taken some time to untangle. This opinion addresses only a small portion of these motions which are, however, of considerable significance to the parties. The plaintiff, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“Cedars-Sinai”), a California corporation, has filed two actions in this Court. The first action (“C.A