Cases

NO. 5-95-0692 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT _________________________________________________________________ GLENN H. WHITTAKER, JR., )

Plaintiff, Glenn Whittaker, appeals from a Madison County circuit court order granting defendants' summary judgment motion. Plaintiff filed this action against defendants, Keith Honegger and Joy Lynn Honegger, seeking recovery for personal injuries sustained when he encountered a patch of loose gravel on the paved public highway in front of defendants' gravel driveway and lost control of his motorcycle. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that as landowner

NO. 5-95-0692 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT _________________________________________________________________ GLENN H. WHITTAKER, JR.,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIE WILLIAMS; LADON Nos. 24-933 CLINE; PAUL CONTRERAS, on 24-2970 behalf of themselves and all others D.C. No. similarly situated, 8:20-cv-01701- PSG-JDE Plaintiff

Soma Tech., Inc. v. Dalamagas, 2017 NCBC 42. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION MECKLENBURG COUNTY 16 CVS 11100 SOMA TECHNOLOGY, INC. ORDER AND OPINION ON Plaintiff, DEFENDANT DESAI’S 12(B)(6) v. MOTION,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROJECT FOR PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE ACCOUNTABILITY, INC., Plaintiff, Case No. 22-cv-2134 (CRC) v. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability

68 Cal.2d 357 (1968) ROGER WHITTAKER et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SHASTA COUNTY et al., Respondents. Sac. No. 7820. Supreme Court of California. In Bank. Mar. 18, 1968. Pickering & Wells and Jerrald K. Pickering for Petitioners. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, Nelson P. Kempsky and Edsel

593 F.3d 1249 (2010) DIAMOND CRYSTAL BRANDS, INC., Diamond Crystal Sales, LLC., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees, v. FOOD MOVERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Hormel Foods Corporation, Counter-Defendant. No. 08-14782. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. January 13, 2010. *1254

432 B.R. 46 (2010) In the matter of BEST PAYPHONES, INC., Debtor. Best Payphones, Inc., Appellant, v. Manhattan Telecommunications Corp. d/b/a Mettel, Appellee. No. 08 Civ. 07339(PGG). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 15, 2010. *50 George Mark Gilmer, Law Office of George M. Gilmer, Brooklyn, NY, for Best Pay

160 F.Supp.2d 927 (2001) Sakharam D. MAHURKAR, M.D. and Sherwood Medical Company d/b/a Kendall/Sherwood-Davis & Geck, Plaintiffs, v. ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. No. 98 C 4890, 99 C 5711. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 9, 2001. *928 *929 Kenn

504 F.Supp.2d 1217 (2007) BROWNING ENTERPRISE, INC., Plaintiff, v. REX IRON & MACHINE PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., Defendant. No. 4:07-CV-1113-RDP. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division. August 13, 2007. David C. Livingston, Gadsden, AL, for Plaintiff. Andrew B. Johnson, John M. Goodman, Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP, Birmingham, AL,

60 F.Supp.2d 869 (1999) PAPER MANUFACTURERS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. RESCUERS, INC., f/k/a Arcar Graphics, Inc., Defendant. No. 3:97 CV 582 AS. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division. August 19, 1999. *870 *871 *872 Edward A Sullivan,

Baker, J. International Ultimate, Inc. (IUI) brought this suit after its insurers denied coverage for a fishing vessel and its cargo. IUI appeals the trial court’s decision granting the defendants’ summary judgment, arguing that its loss arose because of barratry — a covered peril. In the alternative, IUI claims that had its insurance broker ob*733tained a war ris

660 N.E.2d 195 (1995) 277 Ill.App.3d 502 214 Ill.Dec. 4 Benner A. ROOT and Esther Root, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JH INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 1-94-4007. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division. December 29, 1995. *196 Stephen P. Carponelli, Alber

4 S.W.3d 677 (1999) Patricia K. REED, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, INC., Defendant/Appellee. Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Jackson. March 26, 1999. Application for Permission to Appeal Denied October 4, 1999. *679 John R. Smith, Brown, Brasher & Smith, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Roane Waring

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 DLX, Inc. v. Commonwealth No. 03-5528 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0280P (6th Cir.) of Kentucky, et al. File Name: 04a0280p.06 _________________ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

883 S.W.2d 910 (1994) ANUHCO, INC., f/k/a American Carriers, Inc., and American Freight System, Inc., Respondents, v. WESTINGHOUSE CREDIT CORP., Appellant, Commercial Finance Association, Inc., Amicus Curiae. No. WD 47719. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. July 12, 1994. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied August 30, 1994.

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Fuddruckers, Inc., appeals from a jury verdict denying Fuddruckers’ claims for trade dress infringement and unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act> ^ u.S.C. §■ 1125(a) (1982). We reverse and remand for a new trail. BACKGROUND Fuddruckers operates a national chain of “upscale” hamburger restaurants. The restaurants serve hamburgers, hot dogs, wurst

SAMUEL P. KING, District Judge. American Telephone & Telegraph Company (“AT&T”) appeals the judgment of the magistrate judge, following a three-week jury trial, awarding Central Office Telephone, Inc. (“COT”) $1,154 million in damages, and denying AT&T’s claim for over $1 million in unpaid federally tariffed charges for long distance services, under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, (“Communications Act” or

BUCHANAN, Judge. CASE SUMMARY Appellants-plaintiffs Clayton L. Ferguson (Clayton) and Brenda Ferguson (Brenda) [hereinafter collectively referred to as the Fergusons] appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment for appellees-defendants Modern Farm Systems, Inc. (MFS), Kern, Kirtley, and Herr Company (Kern), and David Riggs, d/b/a Riggs Construction Company (Riggs), claiming that the trial court erred in det