Cases

600 F.Supp. 7 (1984) RICHARD GOETTLE, INC., Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant. No. EC82-387-LS-P. United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, E.D. February 28, 1984. *8 James A. Clark, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, Ill., Thomas D. Murry, Mitchell, McNutt, Bush, Lagrone & Sams, Tupelo, Miss., for p

PER CURIAM: On 30 October 2001, this Court issued a decision in this case, United States v. Redlinski, 56 M.J. 508, 521 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App.2001), which was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. On 21 February 2003, that Court reversed as to Specification 2 of the Charge and as to the sentence, but affirmed in all other respects. United States v. Redlinski, 58 M.J. 117 (2003). After setting as

CASSELS, Judge: Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of a military judge alone. Following his pleas of guilty, entered under a pretrial agreement, he was convicted of three specifications of violating a lawful general order, in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and 25 specifications of wrongfully and knowingly receiving visual depictions that had been transported inter

66 F.3d 659 John T. HENNESSY; Michael B. High; William A. Bracken;Larry Gibson; Martha C. Hitchcock; Laurence A.Liss; Ken Mancini; George S. Rapp;Roberta Griffin Torian; Frank J. Sorierov.FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver forMeritor Savings Bank (D.C. Civil No. 93-cv-05589).Thomas CALLAHANv.FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver forMeritor Savings Bank (D.C. Civil No. 94-cv

[Cite as Branche v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 2016-Ohio-3238.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO RAY BRANCHE, : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2016-L-004 - vs -

*240Reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Judge ERVIN joined. Judge NIEMEYER wrote a dissenting opinion. OPINION MOTZ, Circuit Judge: This case requires us to decide whether an insurer must provide a defense, pursuant to a personal liability policy

WORKMAN, Chief Justice, concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part: I concur with the majority that the answer to the first certified question in this ease should be “no.” I dissent, however, to the majority’s decision to adopt principles of federal jurisdiction as the law governing state court jurisdiction. The question in this case is whether a federal

58 F.3d 908 Pens. Plan Guide P 23914IJohn T. HENNESSY; Michael B. High; William A. Bracken;Larry Gibson; Martha C. Hitchcock; Laurence A.Liss; Ken Mancini; George S. Rapp;Roberta Griffin Torian; Frank J. Sorierov.FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver forMeritor Savings Bank.Thomas CALLAHANv.FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver forMeritor Savings Bank.Appeal of John T.

[Cite as KNL Custom Homes, Inc. v. Dotsikas, 2016-Ohio-5117.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) KNL CUSTOM HOMES, INC. C.A. No. 27990 Appellant v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED

[Cite as Said v. Admr., Bur. of Workers' Comp., 2014-Ohio-841.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO TINA R. SAID (Deceased), : APPEAL NO. C-130355 C-130360 and : TRIAL NO. A-1006028 STEVEN M. SAID

French, Presiding Judge. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jennie B. Richards, appeals from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas’ entry of summary judgment and decree of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff-appellee, National City Mortgage Company, d.b.a. Commonwealth United Mortgage Company Corporation (“National City”). For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s judgment. {¶ 2} On June 22, 2004,

[Cite as Berry v. Mullet, 2019-Ohio-2549.] COURT OF APPEALS HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PATRICIA J. BERRY, ET AL. : JUDGES: : : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiffs-Appellees : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Washington, DC UNITED STATES v. Joseph P. REDLINSKI Seaman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Coast Guard CGCMS 24171 Docket No

771 F.Supp.2d 224 (2011) Luciano F. PAONE, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 07-cv-2973 (ADS)(ARL). United States District Court, E.D. New York. February 9, 2011. *225 Kirkland & Elhs LLP, New York, NY, by Andrew Gordon Heinz, Esq., Jeanne M. Heffernan, Esq., John Michael Desmarais, Esq., Jon Todd Hohenthane

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. Pride Mobility Products Corp. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,408,598 and 8,408,343, which disclose and claim wheelchairs designed to travel stably over obstacles. The Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, acting through a panel under authority delegated by the Director, instituted inter partes reviews of the '598 and '343 patents on petiti

Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109; Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), 48 C.F.R, §§ 52.223-1, 52.243-5; Rules Of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) 12(b)(1), 15(a)(2); - Tucker Act Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. In this patent infringement case, the Plaintiff Luciano F. Paone (“Paone”) alleges that the Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) has infringed United States Patent 6,259,789 (“the '789 Patent”), which Paone holds. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2

OPINION TIMMER, Presiding Judge. ¶ 1 In this will contest case, we consider whether the superior court properly invalidated on statutory and public policy grounds in terrorem, clauses of a will and living trust that serve to disinherit beneficiaries who either challenge the enforceability of testamentary documents or cooperate in any such challenge. For the following reasons, we hold that the clause

[Cite as Hairline Clinic, Inc. v. Riggs-Fejes, 2011-Ohio-5894.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) HAIRLINE CLINIC, INC. C.A. No. 25171 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT

[Cite as Zarbana Indus., Inc. v. Hayes, 2018-Ohio-4965.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Zarbana Industries, Inc., : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 18AP-104 v. : (C.P.C. No. 17CV-2705) Jeremy M. Hayes et al.,