⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

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.

20 opinions for “Sanders v. C. R. Bard, Inc.”

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011-06-08 · Published · cited 72× · 642 F.3d 608; 2011 WL 2201067
BENTON, Circuit Judge. Saint Francis Medical Center brought this class action suit against C.R. Bard, Inc., a supplier of medical supplies. According to Saint Francis, Bard’s contracts with Group Purchasing Organizations violate sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, section 3 of the Clayton Act, and Missouri antitrust law. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2; 15 U.S.C. § 14; Mo.Rev.Stat. § 416.031 (2000). Saint Francis seeks relief under se
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2018-08-02 · Published · cited 1× · 316 F. Supp. 3d 1380
SARAH S. VANCE, Chair Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in fifteen of the actions listed on Schedule A pending in seven districts move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District of Ohio or, alternatively, the Wester
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011-06-08 · Published · cited 0× · 616 F.3d 888; 2010 WL 3220600
642 F.3d 608 (2011) SOUTHEAST MISSOURI HOSPITAL, Plaintiff, Saint Francis Medical Center, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.R. BARD, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Tyco International, US, Inc.; Tyco Health Care Group; John Does 1-10, Defendants. Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant. No. 09-3325. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Carroll v. Sanderspublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008-12-29 · Published · cited 24× · 551 F.3d 397; 60 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1692; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26421; 2008 WL 5386525
551 F.3d 397 (2008) In re Jason SANDERS, Debtor. Krispen S. Carroll, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellant, v. Jason Sanders, Appellee. No. 08-1201. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued: December 9, 2008. Decided and Filed: December 29, 2008. *398 ARGUED: Krispen S. Carroll, Office of Chapter 13 Trus
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2015-09-25 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 03-15-00416-CV 7113395 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
District Court, S.D. Florida · 2011-01-31 · Published · cited 22× · 766 F. Supp. 2d 1305; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9049; 2011 WL 332821
766 F.Supp.2d 1305 (2011) Ignacio Damian FIGUEROA, Plaintiff, v. MERSCORP, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 10-61296-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. January 31, 2011. *1307 Kenneth Eric Trent, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff. Andrew Benjamin Boese, Robert Mark Brochin, Morgan, Lewis &a;
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008-12-29 · Published · cited 0×
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0460p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X - In re: JASON SANDERS, -
Wyoming Supreme Court · 2024-01-16 · Published · cited 3× · 541 P.3d 455; 2024 WY 6
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2024 WY 6 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2023 January 16, 2024 TONY R. TESTOLIN and TIM KARLBERG, Appellants (Defendants), v. S-23-0132 THIRTY-ONE BAR RANCH COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Appe
District Court, D. Utah · 1997-07-07 · Published · cited 0× · 970 F. Supp. 892; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10128; 1997 WL 385185
970 F.Supp. 892 (1997) SANDERS BRINE SHRIMP COMPANY, L.C., Plaintiff, v. BONNEVILLE ARTEMIA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. No. 94-NC-085. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. July 7, 1997. *893 *894 *895 Raymond J. Etcheverry, C. Kevin
District Court, D. Delaware · 2006-02-22 · Published · cited 6× · 417 F. Supp. 2d 580; 79 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1258; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6638; 2006 WL 416860
417 F.Supp.2d 580 (2006) ESPEED, INC.; Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P.; and CFPH, L.L.C., Plaintiffs, v. BROKERTEC USA, L.L.C.; Garban, L.L.C.; OM Technology AB; and OM Technology (US), Inc., Defendants. No. Civ.A.03-612-KAJ. United States District Court, D. Delaware. February 22, 2006. *581 *582
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2005-11-28 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 16, 2005 Session LUCY R. CHAPMAN v. H & R BLOCK MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 02-0186 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor No. E2005-00082-COA-R3-CV - FILED NOVEMBER 28, 2005 This appeal presents the issue of the enfor
District Court, D. New Mexico · 2019-03-29 · Published · cited 35× · 372 F. Supp. 3d 1166
James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed March 23, 2018 (Doc. 27)("MTD"). The Court held a hearing on August 10, 2018. The primary issues are: (i) whether the applicable statutes of limitations bar Plaintiff Janice Nowell's claims against Defendants Medtronic Inc., Covidien PLC, Covidien LP, and Medtronic PLC for negligence, strict
District Court, N.D. California · 2019-05-10 · Published · cited 26× · 379 F. Supp. 3d 809
IV. DISCUSSION A. AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Gilead AIDS Healthcare Foundation previously filed an antitrust action concerning Gilead's TDF- and TAF-based drugs that also sought a declaration of patent invalidity and relief under California and Nevada unfair competition laws. AIDS Healthcare Found. ,
District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2013-06-11 · Published · cited 0× · 946 F. Supp. 2d 459; 2013 WL 2565253; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82630
MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT E. PAYNE, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the mandate, on remand, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, instructing this Court “to consider what changes are required to the terms of the injunction consistent with this opinion”1 and on defendant Lawson Software, Inc.’s (“Lawson”) MOTION PURSUANT TO FED.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2002-08-13 · Published · cited 0× · 292 F.3d 918
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 1, 2002 Decided June 21, 2002 Nos. 02-5052 & 02-5053 Timothy C. Pigford, et al., Appellees v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Appellant Appeals from the Uni
District Court, D. Delaware · 2013-01-02 · Published · cited 1× · 917 F. Supp. 2d 300; 2013 WL 227630; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154
MEMORANDUM OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The instant action arises from a patent dispute between Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Electronics, Inc., and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (collectively, “Micron”) and Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) over Micron’s alleged infringement of twelve Rambus patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,915,-105; 5,953,263; 5,954,804; 5,995,443
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2014-07-08 · Published · cited 0× · 30 F. Supp. 3d 554; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92314; 2014 WL 3361920
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
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · 2015-12-22 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 14-15-00925-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/22/2015 2:55:16
Oregon Supreme Court · 2016-04-14 · Published · cited 76× · 359 Or. 63; 376 P.3d 960
*69 BALMER, C. J. This case arises from a helicopter crash in a remote part of Peru, which resulted in the deaths of everyone on board. Plaintiffs brought wrongful death actions in Oregon against Evergreen Helicopters, Inc. (Evergreen), an Oregon corporation that provided the helicopter and the pilot. Ever
Superior Court of Rhode Island · 2011-02-15 · Published · cited 0×
DECISION Before the Court in this products liability action is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Production of Archived Information. The Defendants Davol, Inc. ("Davol") and C.R. Bard, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") object to this motion. This Court afforded the parties an opportunity to be heard on February 3, 2011. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14.