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.
7 opinions for “Taser International Inc v. Stinger Systems, Inc.”
Taser International, Inc. v. Stinger Systems, Inc.public domain
705 F.Supp.2d 1115 (2010) TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. STINGER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. No. 07-042-PHX-MHM. United States District Court, D. Arizona. March 31, 2010. *1120 Aaron H. Matz, Chad Steven Campbell, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA, Phoenix, AZ, Holly L. Gibeaut, Taser International, Scottsdale, AZ, John R.
Taser International, Inc. v. Karbon Arms, LLCpublic domain
Memorandum Opinion ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge: Presently before the Court are motions for summary judgment submitted by Plaintiff TASER International, Inc. (D.I. 132) and related briefing (D.I.133, 139, 162), and by Defendant Karbon Arms, LLC (D.I.130) and related briefing (D.I. 131, 137, 163). The Court has heard helpful oral argument on both motions. (D.I. 171). I. BACKGROUND
ePlus Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.public domain
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
MacRae v. Mattospublic domain
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 23-1817 KARI MACRAE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MATTHEW MATTOS; MATTHEW A. FERRON; HANOVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Denise J. Casper, U.S. District Judge]
Rodriguez v. County of Los Angelespublic domain
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS (1) FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; (2) MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS TO MOVING DEFENDANTS AND FOR A NEW TRIAL FOR THESE DEFENDANTS AFTER RESOLUTION OF INTERLOCUTORY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY APPEALS; (3) TO VACATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES; and (4) FOR A NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 59(A). CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, District Judge. Before the Court are four post-trial motions filed by D
Aldaba v. Marshall Countypublic domain
McKAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Erma Aldaba brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on behalf of her deceased son, Johnny Manuel Leija, who died after an altercation with Appellants— Officer Brandon Pickens and Deputies James Atnip and Steve Beebe — in the Oklahoma hospital where he was being treated for pneumonia. Plaintiff brought several claims against various defendants, incl
Peschel v. City of Missoulapublic domain
ORDER JEREMIAH C. LYNCH, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court upon “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment *1157on Issue of Negligent Hiring and Retention of Former Sgt. Jason Hunstinger”, and on “Defendant City of Missoula’s Motion for Summary Judgment on State Law Claims”. The motions are filed pursuant to Fed.R.Ci