Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
5 opinions for “Rouillard's Restaurants Inc.”
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE By way of this action, Plaintiffs Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. ("AAPS") and Dr. Eileen Natuzzi ("Dr. Natuzzi") seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Shelley Rouillard, in her official capacity as the Director of the California Department of Managed Health Care, ("Defendant") on the basis that Assembly Bill No. 72 ("the Act" or "AB 72"), which pa
Wolf Appliance, Inc. v. Viking Range Corp.public domain
686 F.Supp.2d 878 (2010) WOLF APPLIANCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. VIKING RANGE CORP., Defendant. No. 09-cv-697-vis.[1] United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. February 11, 2010. *882 Jeffrey A. Simmons, Justin Edwin Gray, Stephan J. Nickels, Foley & Lardner LLP., Madison, WI, for Plaintiff. Anthony J. Sieve
640 Tenth, LP v. Newsompublic domain
Filed 6/9/22 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 640 TENTH, LP, et al., D079339 (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020-00041316- Plaintiffs and Appellants, CU-MC-CTL) v.
640 Tenth, LP v. Newsompublic domain
Filed 5/13/22 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 640 TENTH, LP et al., D079339 Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020-00041316- CU-MC-CTL) GAVIN NEWSOM, as Governor, etc. et al., Defend
Staples v. Pond Club, Inc.public domain
Wilkins, J. This is an action of tort for personal injuries allegedly sustained by reason of a defective condition of the defendant’s premises negligently maintained in violation of the duty owed the plaintiff as an invitee. The answer contained a general denial and alleged con-' tributary negligence. At the close of the evidence the judge allowed a motion of the defendant for a directed verdict in its favor. The plaintiff except