Cases

OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J. This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which, sitting as finder of fact in a non-jury trial, found Appellant guilty of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance1 and knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled substance.2 Appellant claim

OPINION SHERRY RADACK, Chief Justice. After a jury trial on a seller’s claim arising out of the breach of an earnest money contract, the trial court signed a judgment awarding the seller of real property the earnest money, plus liquidated damages in an amount equal to three times the earnest money, as provided in the contract, and attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. On appeal, the buyer (1) challenges the

Melissa Goodwin, Justice Charles J. Hughes appeals from the trial court's order granting Tom Green County's plea to the jurisdiction. Hughes sued the County for breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on an agreement Hughes and the County entered into in connection with prior litigation and for violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. See generally Tex. Gov't Code §§ 551.001 -.146. Asserting its governmental immuni

I The County decided to recognize the Stephenses' generosity and efforts by attaching their family name to the new library. The County also decided to honor Duwain E. Hughes by putting his name on the library's Audio Visual Department. Mindful of the MPA agreement with Hughes's heirs, the commissioners court also resolved that the $ 500,000 recovery from SMU was "not substantial enough" to name the li

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs (collectively, Shire) sued Defendants (collectively, Watson) for infringing claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,773,720 by filing Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 203817 with the Food and Drug Administration seeking to market a generic version of Shire’s mesalamine drug, LIALDA®. Because Watson’s ANDA Product does not satisfy the Mar-kush

Justice BAER, dissent. For the reasons developed in my dissenting opinion in the companion case of Commonwealth v. Sam, 597 Pa. 528, 952 A.2d 565, 2008 WL 2853095 (Pa.2008), I respectfully dissent because the alleged governmental interest in this case fails to justify the substantial violation of the inmates’ liberty interest resulting from compelled psychiatric medication. The asserted governmental int

927 A.2d 274 (2007) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Eugene WATSON, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted January 29, 2007. Filed June 1, 2007. Reargument Denied August 3, 2007. *275 Eugene Watson, appellant, Pro Se. Hugh J. Burns, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for Com., ap

¶ 1 Appellant, Imeen Watson, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial conviction for criminal conspiracy.1 We affirm Appellant's conviction but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing. ¶ 2 The trial court opinion introduces the relevant facts of this case as follows: At approximately one o'clock on the aftern

OPINION AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. In this pro se action, Plaintiff Mark J. Watson seeks damages relating to the United States Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) administration of the non-immigrant visa program under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and DOL’s decision not to investigate Plaintiffs claims for damages. Defendant has moved to dismiss the complain

MAYER, Circuit Judge. Watson Laboratories, Inc. (‘Watson”) appeals the final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,441,168 (the “'168 patent”) is not invalid under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2006). 1 See Merck & Cie v.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. This ease returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court. In Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 746 F.3d 1326 (Fed.Cir.2014), we decided an appeal by defendant-appellants (collectively, Watson) from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The district court found, among o

45 Cal.4th 322 (2008) ALEXANDRA VAN HORN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ANTHONY GLEN WATSON et al., Defendants and Respondents; ANTHONY GLEN WATSON, Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. LISA TORTI, Cross-defendant and Respondent. No. S152360. Supreme Court of California. December 18, 2008. *324 Law Offices of Hutchinson

This is a post-divorce case. Wanda Milstead Hughes and William Evans Hughes, Jr., were divorced in July 1993. In its divorce judgment, the trial court ratified, confirmed, and incorporated an agreement reached between the parties. The agreement stated, in pertinent part: "The Wife shall pay to the Husband as periodic alimony the sum of $7,200.00 within thirty days from the date of the divorce decree, and a monthly sum of $600.00, beginning on the first day o

598 S.E.2d 743 (2004) 43 Va.App. 391 Richard Ruleman HUGHES, Jr., Shannon Wayne Hughes and Shawn William Hughes v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. Record No. 0372-03-3. Court of Appeals of Virginia, Richmond. July 6, 2004. *744 David B. Hargett, Richmond (W. Todd Watson; Hargett & Watson, on brief), for appe

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs-appellees (collectively, Shire) own U.S. Patent No. 6,773,720, which claims a eontrolled-release oral pharmaceutical composition for treating inflammatory bowel diseases. Shire markets these oral pharmaceutical compositions under the brand name LIALDA®. After the defendants-appellants (collectively, Watson) submitted an Abbreviated New Dru

836 A.2d 893 (2003) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Jerome Jason HUGHES, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued May 14, 2003. Decided November 25, 2003. *896 Paul Watson Muller, Hershey, for Jerome Jason Hughes, Appellant. Edward Michael Marsico, Jr., Harrisburg, James Patrick Barker, Williamsport, for

Opinion issued July 9, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-12-00051-CV ——————————— ALBERT E. MAGILL AND JENNIFER T. MAGILL, Appellants V. WILLIAM HUGH WATSON, JR., AS TRUSTEE OF THE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KHALIF WATSON, § § No. 418, 2022 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 1703002846A/B STATE OF DELAWARE,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KHALIF WATSON, § § No. 410, 2022 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 1703002846 A/B (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, §

437 F.Supp.2d 638 (2006) Carolyn WATSON, Antoinette James, Hazel Edwards, Nicole Alston, Gail Dean Hughes, Kim Edward Mitchell, Suzette Hall, Ellis Herd, Joyce Mixon, Winifred Williams, Cheryl Johnson, and Geraldine Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, Michael Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security, Harvey Johnson, R. David Paulison, and William Peterson, Defend