Cases

OPINION COLE, Circuit Judge. As part of a large, consolidated coverage action, medical device manufacturer Stryker Corporation (“Stryker”) filed suit against TIG Insurance Company (“TIG”), which had issued an excess insurance policy to Stryker. Stryker asserts that TIG is potentially liable for sums stemming from two separate actions relating to expired

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KOPF, Chief Judge. This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (filing 53) and on Plaintiffs’ statement of objections thereto (filing 56), filed as allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and NELR 72.4. Upon de novo review, I find that inasmuch as Magistrate Judge Piester has fully, carefully, and correctly found the facts and applied t

We are asked to consider whether a nonsuit order is void to the extent it dismisses claims not encompassed by the motion for nonsuit. We hold the order is not void and therefore dismiss the appeals of 155 appellants against nine appellees. Factual and Procedural Background This appeal arises out of a mass tort action that consolidated eighteen cases involving over eight thousand plaintiffs and over thirty defendants. The notice of appeal and t

Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge *1064I. INTRODUCTION This patent case is before me on (1) a motion (Doc. No. 55) for summary judgment of noninfringement filed by defendant C & B Manufacturing, Inc. (HitchDoc), and (2) a motion (Doc. No. 56) for summary judgment of infringement filed by plaintiff Meridian Manufact

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 131 OPINION In this products liability case, appellants allege they contracted asbestosis or silicosis as a result of exposure to asbestos or silica in the course of their employment at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CP) or the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant (STP).

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District WRIT DIVISION ONE KRISTINE HILL AND DENNIS HILL, ) ED110232 ) Relators, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Louis County v. ) 19SL-CC0

ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge *459Defendants Daktronics, Inc. and Daktronics Hoist, Inc. ("Daktronics" or the "Defendants") move for summary judgment on the issue of willful infringement, a claim that was brought by Plaintiff Olaf Sööt Design, LLC ("OSD" or the "Plaintiff"). Defendants also move for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 in response to Plaintiff's Rul

MEMORANDUM & ORDER STIEHL, District Judge. Before the Court is plaintiff Roger Benson’s motion to remand this matter to the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446 and 1447(c) (Doc. 4). Defendants Unilever United States, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Unilever Illinois Manufacturing, LLC have responded (Doc. 14), and plaintiff has replied (Doc. 15). Plainti

Smith, Judge. In separate appeals, the Georgia Public Service Commission (“PSC”) and Georgia Power Company challenge an order issued by the Superior Court of Fulton County reversing a decision by the PSC. The PSC had determined that under the “large load customer choice exception” to the Georgia Territorial Electric Service Act, OCGA § 46-3-1 et seq. (“Territorial Act” or “Act”), Georgia Power was properly selected as the elec

670 S.E.2d 811 (2008) CAROLINA TOBACCO COMPANY v. BAKER. No. A08A1045. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 18, 2008. Reconsideration Denied December 11, 2008. Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, James Darren Summerville, Steven Jason Rosenwasser, Atlanta, for Appellant. Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Isaac Byrd, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sidney R. Bar

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. The Plaintiff Metso Minerals commenced the present law suit in 2006, alleging that the Defendants Powerscreen International Distribution Limited (“Powerscreen”), Terex Corporation (“Terex”), Powerscreen New York, Inc. (“PSNY”), and Emerald Equipment Systems, Inc. (“Emerald”), manufactured and sold prod*325<

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, District Judge. Pending before the court are Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket 83], Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Based on Preemption of Certain Claims [Docket 87], *556and Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages [Docket 93]. For th

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER A. KATHLEEN TOMLINSON, Magistrate Judge: I.• PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs Alonso Lara and Elizabeth Lara (collectively the “Plaintiffs”) brought this action against the Defendant Delta International Machinery Corp. (“Delta” or the “Defendant”) based upon allegations of negligence, breach of warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchanta

USCA11 Case: 20-14337 Date Filed: 08/22/2022 Page: 1 of 33 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-14337 ____________________ TRELLUS RICHMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MARIO

ROSENN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The majority holds that the trustee in bankruptcy may not transfer the estate’s pre-judgment tort claim in the absence of specific federal law preemption. The predicate for its holding is that “the trustee’s rights in the property are limited to only those rights that the debtor possessed pre-petition.” Maj. op. at 493. The debtor in this case, however, never possess

193 B.R. 722 (1996) INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SERVICE SUPPORT SPECIALTIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-4953(JCL). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 11, 1996. *723 *724 Susan Stryker, Sterns & Weinroth, Trenton, NJ, for Plaintiff. John P.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Mayer. Lourie, Circuit Judge. *1330Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, S.A. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc. (collectively, "DRL"); Watson Laboratories Inc. and Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (collectively, "Watson"); and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva") appeal from several decisions

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff ePlus, Inc.’s (“ePlus”) MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LAWSON SOFTWARE, INC. SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT (Docket No. 798). For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that Lawson Software, Inc. (“Lawson”) is in contempt of the May 23, 2011 Permanent Injunction (D

695 F.Supp. 1109 (1988) In re WYOMING TIGHT SANDS ANTITRUST CASES. Civ. A. No. 85-2349-S. United States District Court, D. Kansas. May 4, 1988. Opinion on Motion for Certification June 7, 1988. *1110 Basil W. Kelsey, Frank B.W. McCollum, Terry W. Schackmann, Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne, Overland Park, Kan. R

131 S.W.3d 129 (2004) In re R.O.C. Pretrial. No. 04-01-00404-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. January 14, 2004. *131 Richard C. Jaramillo, Law Offices of Richard Jaramillo & Associates, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Appellant. Jacqueline M. Stroh, Sharon E. Callaway, Crofts & Callaway, P.C., San Antonio, TX, Jeffrey R.