Cases

384 F.Supp.2d 692 (2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Anuradha D. SAAD, Richard P. Adelson, David J. Cammarata, Peter Torres, Robert McKie, Karin Gardner, and Kenneth Jugan, Defendants. No. 05 Civ. 3308(JSR). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 26, 2005. *693 David Paul Stoelting, Mark K. Scho

MEMORANDUM RAKOFF, District Judge. On March 29, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a Complaint accusing the defendants of engaging in a fraudulent scheme to inflate the reported financial results of IMPATH, Inc. (“Impath”), a public company. See Complaint, 111. While four of the defendants quickly settled the case, the two lead defendants— Saad and Adelson — deni

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 23-2110 _______________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSEPH CAMMARATA, Appellant _______________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 23-2110 _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSEPH CAMMARATA, Appellant _______________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER JOAN B. GOTTSCHALL, United States District Judge This case is part of the fall-out of a penny-stock pump-and-dump scheme. In June 2009, defendant Bosko R, Gasich (“Gasich”) and other individuals associated with Zenergy International, Inc. (“Zener-gy”) acquired the publicly traded stock of Paradigm Tactical Products, Inc. (“Paradigm”) through a reverse-merger. In c

BATTAGLIA, J. Table of Contents I. Introduction.......................................420 II. Judge Doory’s Findings of Fact .....................442 III. Judge Doory’s Conclusions of Law...................471 IV. Discuss

Levine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The central issue in this appeal is whether a lessee may, consistent with the public policy of this state, voluntarily agree to relinquish in advance his statutory right to challenge a determination by the Supervisor of Assessments that the demised premises is subject to real property taxation. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County struck down such a noncon

Ellen Lipton Hollander, United States District Judge The State of Maryland filed a declaratory and injunctive action, seeking, among other things, a declaration as to the constitutionality and enforceability of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (Mar. 23, 2010), as amended by t

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ Nos. 22-2196, 22-2368 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES PERRIN, Appellant 22-2196 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PRICE MONTGOMERY,

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RADER. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge MAYER. RADER, Circuit Judge. This appeal stems from two stipulated judgments of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,278,982 (the ’982 patent). Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Mgmt., LLC, 03-CV-9382 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2004) (Royalblue Stipulation); Lava Trading, I

*1915 OPINION AND ORDER EATON, Judge: This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to USCIT Rule 56(c) of plaintiff Allstates Trading & Clothing Co., Ltd. (“plaintiff” or “Allstates”) and defendant the United States

AKINS v. BEN MILAM HEAT AIR & ELECTRIC INC. Skip to Main Content Accessibility Statement Help Contact Us

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-1545L (Filed: March 23, 2021) ) FRANK PENNA and ) LISA PENNA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. )

55 So.3d 1267 (2010) Andrew Richard ALLRED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. SC08-2354. Supreme Court of Florida. December 16, 2010. Rehearing Denied March 2, 2011. *1271 James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Christopher S. Quarles, Assistant Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, F

ORDER KAREN WELLS ROBY, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is a PHI, Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Louisiana’s Motion for Sanctions (R. Doc. 598) seeking an order from this Court imposing sanctions against Defendant Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (“Sikorsky”). Sikorsky opposes the motion. (R. Doc. 632). The motion was heard with oral argument on Wednesday, Septe

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Nina Y. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge This civil action comes before the court on Plaintiff Shannon Zbylski’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence (“Motion for Sanctions’’). [#70, filed August-24, 2015]. Also before the court is Plaintiffs identical Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidénce, filed inadvertently earlier the same day as an unrestricte

520 U.S. 681 (1997) CLINTON v. JONES No. 95-1853. United States Supreme Court. Argued January 13, 1997. Decided May 27, 1997. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT *682 *683 Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,

894 A.2d 1180 (2006) 384 N.J. Super. 351 STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ahmed ELKWISNI, Defendant-Appellant. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued November 30, 2005. Decided April 6, 2006. *1182 Jeffrey J. Garrigan argued the cause for appellant (Cammarata, Nulty & Gar

The opinion of the court was delivered by D’ANNUNZIO, J.A.D. The issue is the validity of a regulation banning photography on the New Jersey Turnpike. Defendant’s municipal court conviction for taking photographs on the New Jersey Turnpike was upheld in the Law Division. Defendant appeals, and we now reverse. Defendant, a Virginia resident, was traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike with hi

OPINION HORN, J. Plaintiff, Chapman Law Firm, LPA, asserts three claims1 against defendant arising from plaintiffs contract with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide management and marketing services for single-family homes in Ohio and Michigan. Plaintiff seeks compensation for: (1) costs that plaintiff incurred during two stop work order periods issu