Cases

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge MICHAEL wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINS and Senior Judge HAMILTON joined. OPINION MICHAEL, Circuit Judge. This case involves a dispute over Internet domain names between two companies named “Harrods,” both with legitimate rights to the “Harrods

110 F.Supp.2d 420 (2000) HARRODS LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. SIXTY INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES, Defendants. No. Civ.A. 00-262-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. August 15, 2000. *421 Geoffrey J. Greeves, Greenberg Traurig, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Attison L. Barnes, III, Gardner, Carton & D

157 F.Supp.2d 658 (2001) HARRODS LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. SIXTY INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES, Defendants. No. CIV. A. 00-262-A. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia. Alexandria Division. June 27, 2001. *659 Ralph A. Taylor, Jr., Bruce R. Ewing, Kevin B. Bedell, Lile H. Deinard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintif

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JIN GUANGHUA, Criminal Action No. 23-91-2 (CKK) Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (August 1, 2025) Defendant Guanghua Jin faces a twelve-count indictment charging him with participation in a bank-fraud, money-laundering, and sa

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. RICHARD EVANS, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge] Befo

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 23-1839 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. IAN FREEMAN, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Joseph N. Laplante, U.S. District Judge] Before

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 605 U. S. Part 1 Pages 114–164 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT May 22, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are r

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-CF-0902 EL HADJI A. TOURE, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 23-843 Filed: January 14, 2025 DANIEL S. NICHOLSON and PATRICIA E. MIDGETT, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Lindsay S.C. Brinton, Meghan S. Largent, and Michael Armstrong, Lewis Rice LLC, St. Louis, Missouri, for Plaintiffs. Peter W. Brocker, Natural Resources Section, with Tod

CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-912 Filed: November 26, 2024 PERRY LOVERIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Thomas S. Stewart and Reed W. Ripley, Stewart, Wald & Smith, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs. Kimberly A. Cullen and LeeAnn Kim, Trial

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 23-499 Filed: January 14, 2025 RICKEY A. HYATT and BARBARA HYATT, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Lindsay S.C. Brinton, Meghan S. Largent, and Michael Armstrong, Lewis Rice LLC, St. Louis, Missouri, with J. Nathan Duggins, III, Michael S. Fox, and Jason B. Sparrow, Tuggle Duggins, P

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 605 U. S. Part 2 Pages 495–608 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 18, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 23-843 Filed: January 16, 2025 DANIEL S. NICHOLSON and PATRICIA E. MIDGETT, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Lindsay S.C. Brinton, Meghan S. Largent, and Michael Armstrong, Lewis Rice LLC, St. Louis, Missouri, for Plaintiffs. Peter W. Brocker, Natural Resources Section, with Tod

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-912 Filed: November 26, 2024 PERRY LOVERIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Thomas S. Stewart and Reed W. Ripley, Stewart, Wald & Smith, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs. Kimberly A. Cullen and Leann Kim, Trial Attorneys, David A. Harrington, Assistant Chief, Todd K

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 23-499 Filed: January 16, 2025 RICKEY A. HYATT and BARBARA HYATT, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Lindsay S.C. Brinton, Meghan S. Largent, and Michael Armstrong, Lewis Rice LLC, St. Louis, Missouri, with J. Nathan Duggins, III, Michael S. Fox, and Jason B. Sparrow, Tuggle Duggins, P

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 21-2181 L Filed: October 31, 2024 ________________________________________ ) DEBORAH E. BARRON and JOHN ) BUENAVENTURA BAEZ, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, )

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-CF-1340 BENITO M. VALDEZ, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES,

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 602 U. S. Part 1 Pages 680–778 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 21, 2024 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 25-549 Filed: June 16, 2025 *************************************** ALLISON STANTON EL, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * UNITED STATES,

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit