Cases

Mary Beth Kelly, J. These cases arise out of an explosion that destroyed plaintiff Marcy Hill’s Clinton Township home after she released natural gas through an uncapped gas line, which ignited when her adult daughter attempted to light a candle, after they had both actually smelled the gas in the home throughout the day and evening. Plaintiffs1 filed suit against the retailers, delivery companies, and

RANDOLPH, Justice, for the Court: ¶ 1. In August 2005, Lisa Learmonth sustained severe injuries in an auto/truck collision with a vehicle owned by Sears, Roebuck & Company (“Sears”) and driven by its employee. Learmonth filed suit against Sears in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi — Eastern Division (“district court”). The jury returned a unanimous general verd

303 S.W.2d 432 (1957) SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Sam S. JONES, Appellee. No. 3443. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Waco. May 9, 1957. After Entry of Remittitur May 23, 1957. Rehearing Denied June 6, 1957. *434 Thompson, Knight, Wright & Simmons, Pinkney Grissom, Timoth

Quinn, J. Plaintiff sued defendants in common pleas court of Detroit. Defendant Ranee A. Jones appeared and defended. Jury trial resulted in a verdict of no cause for action from which plaintiff has appealed. Suit was filed on a contract attached to plaintiff’s declaration. The contract is designated “Sears revolving charge account agreement”. It is signed Mrs. Ranee Jones, conceded to be the wife of Ranee A.

879 N.E.2d 893 (2007) 227 Ill.2d 147 316 Ill.Dec. 505 Jacob TOWNSEND et al., Appellees, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Appellant. No. 103858. Supreme Court of Illinois. November 29, 2007. *895 Dennis J. Powers, Chicago, James M. Brogan, Nancy Shane Rappaport, Philadelphia, Pennsylva

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

MURRAH, Chief Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment holding appellees’ patent for “Locking Wrench and Pliers” valid and infringed and enjoining the future sale of appellants’ accused device. Jones is the owner of the patent in suit, and Petersen Manufacturing Company, Inc. is his exclusive licensee. Sears, Roebuck & Co. markets the accused device, manufactured by Parker Manufacturing Company. Appellan

(2008) Kimberly TOWNES MOSES, on behalf of herself and as a representative of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 17:07cv00423. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division. March 3, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION SAMUEL G. WILSON, District Judge. P

720 F.Supp.2d 738 (2010) Sufernia MONTGOMERY v. SEARS ROEBUCK & CO., et al. Civil Action No. 09-0584. United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division. June 17, 2010. *741 Charles D. Jones, Rosalind Denise Jones, Jones Law Group, Monroe, LA, for Sufernia Montgomery. Cheryl D. Comer, Renee C. Culotta, Frilo

308 F.2d 705 135 U.S.P.Q. 149 SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., a New York corporation; and ParkerManufacturing Company, a Massachusettscorporation, Appellants,v.Harold T. JONES and The Petersen Manufacturing Company,Inc., a Nebraskacorporation, Appellees. No. 6716. United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. Sept. 12, 1962.

276 F.Supp.2d 603 (2003) Rodney R. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant. No. CIV. 3:01-CV-675LN. United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division. May 30, 2003. *604 Joseph Patrick Frascogna, Frascogna Courtney, PLLC, Jackson, MS, David A. Szwak, Bodenheimer, Jones, Szwak & Winchell, LLP, Shr

629 S.E.2d 561 (2006) 278 Ga. App. 677 WALKER v. SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY. No. A06A0681. Court of Appeals of Georgia. April 7, 2006. *562 Tisinger, Tisinger, Vance & Greer, William S. Barber, James V. Chafin, Columbus, for appellant. Jones, Cork & Miller, Matthew T. Strickland, Macon, for

The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has shown good grounds to remand this matter to Deputy Commissioner Amy L. Pfeiffer for the Deposition of Dr. Jones and for the submission of any other lay or medical evidence either party desires to submit. Accordingly, this matter is hereby remanded to Deputy Commissioner Pfeiffer for additional e

*********** The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and the briefs and arguments of the parties as well as the additional evidence of the deposition of Dr. Jones. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider this matter and to receive into evidence the deposition of Dr. Jones. Accordingly, the Full Commission modifies and affirms the Opinion an

Johnson, Judge. Hazel Carr brought this negligence action against Sears, Roebuck & Company to recover damages for injuries she sustained when she tripped over a stack of boxes of merchandise located in front of a customer service island at a Sears store and fell. Without making findings of fact or conclusions of law, the trial court granted Sears’ motion for summary judgment. Carr appeals. In reviewing

263 F.Supp.2d 1209 (2003) Nicole YUTESLER, Plaintiff, v. SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., being sued as Sears Roebuck & Co.; Trans Union LLC; and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendants. No. Civ. 03-17(DWFSRN). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. May 14, 2003. Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., and Thomas J. Lyons, Lyons & Associates, Little Canada, MN, for Plaint

ORDER AND REASONS BERRIGAN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of alternative designs and for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ design defect claim. For the following reasons, the Court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismisses the motion to exclude evidence as moot. Plaintiffs Edward Sisk and Enola Sisk

ORDER CARNES, District Judge. This case is presently before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend [26], Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time for Discovery [29], Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order [30], Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend [31], and Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order [43]. The Court has reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and, for the reasons s

ORDER BOWEN, District Judge. This is an action alleging violation of plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Plaintiff contends that defendant Smith, agent of Sears, Roebuck & Company, detained her illegally and conspired with the remaining defendants, members of the Augusta Police Department, to arrest her on false charges. She also contends that during the course of her unlawful de

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: The Mullens failed to comply with Louisiana’s prescriptive statutes by serving Sears within the limitations period, service required by Louisiana because the suit was filed in a court where venue was improper. We hold that removing to federal district court where venue was proper did not relieve the M