Cases

PER CURIAM. During extended litigation, seaman Stark settled with his former employers (those potentially hable under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688) and voluntarily dismissed a large number of codefendant marine component manufacturers. This dismissal was “without prejudice,” and allowed a sixty-day window for the remaining defendants to join any dismissed parties. After the case was transferred from the Eastern District of P

OPINION ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Shares owned by a bankrupt party amounting to a one-third interest in a closely held corporation — shares that the debtor had not originally listed in the bankruptcy petition — subsequently increased in value. The debtor and the bankruptcy trustee agreed that if the debt- or paid to the bankruptcy estate an amount sufficien

Perretta, J. Sometime in 1992, the plaintiff (Bleicken) stored certain personal property in the basement of the home of the defendant (Stark). Some seven years later, when Stark put her property up for sale, she disposed of many of Bleicken’s stored possessions. Bleicken then brought this action for damages on the basis of claims of conversion and replevin. A Superior Court judge found in Bleicken’s favor. On appeal, Stark argue

J-S44005-25 2026 PA Super 156 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MICHAEL ALLEN STARK : :

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge. Arthur Lister sued the Sun Electric Corporation, the Sun Electric Corporation Pension Trust (“Trust”) and two trustees of the Trust in state court, seeking a declaration that he was entitled to “uninterrupted service credit for the period from July 1964 to January 1971 for the purpose of calculating his pension benefits.” Complaint TUT 20(a) and 25(a). T

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge: This is a qui tam case under the False Claims Act (FCA). One citrus company seeks damages from other citrus companies, claiming that they made false statements to the government in connection with a citrus marketing program. The government intervened several years after the litigation began and sought dismissal under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(2)(A) because it had decided to abandon the entire marketing

438 F.Supp.2d 16 (2006) CENTURY PACKING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. GIFFIN SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Defendant. No. CIV. 02-2143(RLA). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. July 14, 2006. *17 Yolanda Benítez-Sánchez, Esq., Luis Cotto-Román, Esq., San Juan, PHV Jolyda Otylie Swaim, Esq., Olsson, Frank & Weeda, Washi

573 N.W.2d 757 (1998) 254 Neb. 30 Warren STARKS, Appellant, v. CORNHUSKER PACKING CO., Appellee. No. S-97-318. Supreme Court of Nebraska. February 20, 1998. *760 Thomas F. Dowd, of Dowd & Dowd, Omaha, for appellant. Mark J. Peterson, of Erickson & Sederstrom, P.C., Omaha, for appellee. <

32 F.Supp.2d 561 (1999) CUMBERLAND PACKING CORP. and Stadt Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, The Nutrasweet Company, The Nutrasweet Kelco Company, and Olympia Industries, Inc., Defendants. No. 97 CV 6938. United States District Court, E.D. New York. January 12, 1999. *562 *563

Case: 21-1609 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant BIOVERIS CORPORATION, Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant v. MESO SCALE DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Cross-Appellant ______

Case: 21-1609 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant BIOVERIS CORPORATION, Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant v. MESO SCALE DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Cross-Appellant ______

Order, Supreme Court, New York *535County, entered on August 16, 1971, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary-judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and plaintiff’s motion granted, judgment awarded plaintiff as prayed for and defendant’s counterclaim dismissed. Appellant shall recover of respondents $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Appeal from the order of said court, entered on Octob

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILLIAMS. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: Willard B. Stark petitions for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board (the “Board”) affirming denial of his claim for permanent and total disability benefits under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et

James A. Roe, Jr., J. Plaintiff moves for an order vacating the dismissal of the complaint in this action for failure to proceed *103to trial on September 11, 1962, and vacating the judgment of dismissal entered herein on September 14, 1962. Defendant urges that the motion should be denied because plaintiff has failed to show a reasonable excuse for the

276 N.E.2d 904 (1971) INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE, Appellant, v. STARK-WETZEL & CO., Inc., Appellee. No. 1071A203. Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2. December 22, 1971. *905 Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Hugh Couch, Larry J. McKinney, Mark Peden, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellant. Dutton, Kap

233 B.R. 387 (1999) In re PEET PACKING COMPANY, Debtor. Randall L. Frank, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Dennis L. McLain, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 95-20725, Adversary No. 97-2098. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division. March 26, 1999. *388 E. Todd Sable, Birmingham, MI, for plaintiff. Dennis L. McL

J. Irwin Shapiro, J. Defendant Fruehauf Trailer Company moves for partial summary judgment as to the first and second causes of action alleged in the verified third amended complaint. Plaintiff moves for like relief as to those causes of action. The basic facts underlying the two causes of action are not in dispute. In both, the plaintiff alleges purported acts of conversion on the part of defendant Fruehauf

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE CBS CORPORATION ) CONSOLIDATED STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION ) C.A. No. 2020-0111-JRS AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: September 17, 2020 Date Decided: January 27, 2021 Michael Hanrahan, Esquire, Corinne Elise Amato, Esquire, Eric J. Juray, Esquire and Xi (Elizabeth) Wang, Esq

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Notwithstanding the majority’s thoughtful and well-crafted opinion, I respectfully dissent as I would reverse the District Court’s order that it entered following its opinion reported at ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corp., 769 F.Supp.2d 684 (D.Del. 2011), denying Eaton’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Although the majority opinion recites in detail the factual

667 F.Supp.2d 1062 (2009) CERNER CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. VISICU, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant. Case No. 04-1033-CV-W-GAF. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division. October 26, 2009. *1064 Bart A. Starr, Basil Trent Webb, Holly L. Teeter, Jason Mudd, Jonathan N. Zerger, Shook Hardy &