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.
20 opinions for “Winston Tire Company A Ca Corp”
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, HIKMA AMERICAS INC., HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC, Defendants-Cross-Appellants ______________________ 2015-1139, 2015-1142 ______________________ Appeals from the United States D
Judgment rendered November 20, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 55,771-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** JAN TAYLOR AND JES
Jacobsen v. Asbestos Corp.public domain
FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER, Judge. 12John S. Jacobsen Jr., plaintiff, appeals the trial court’s grant of an exception of lack of personal jurisdiction in favor of Norca Corporation, a defendant in this matter. Mr. Jacobsen argues that the trial court erred in granting this exception as the trial court gained personal jurisdiction over Norca because of its brokering sales of asbestos, the product alleged to have caused the damag
79 P.3d 1206 (2003) 206 Ariz. 447 BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICA TIRE, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Dionicio NARANJO and Martha Monta๑o, husband and wife; Zulema Naranjo, a minor child; and Lizette Naranjo, a minor child, Defendants/Appellants. No. 2 CA-CV 2003-0009. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department B.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE NORTH ) 2 CA-CV 2003-0009 AMERICA TIRE, L.L.C., a Delaware ) DEPARTMENT B limited liability company, ) ) OPINION Plaintiff/Appellee, )
Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.public domain
11 BROWN, Judge. This case is before us on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the supreme court reversed this court’s decision (or indecision) on the issue of causation and remanded the matter for a determination of quantum.1 Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 94-2603, 94-2615 (La. 02/20/95), 650 So.2d 757. DISCUSSION <
Old Republic Life Insurance Company v. Roberta Woodypublic domain
02/14/2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 1, 2021 Session OLD REPUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. ROBERTA WOODY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for McMinn County No. 2013-CV-117 J. Michael Sharp, Judge
Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. *1226PROST, Chief Judge. Sprint Communication Company LP and its affiliates (collectively, “Sprint”) appeal from a final decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,452,932; 6,463,052; 6,633,561; 7
Clark v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.public domain
ISHEE, J., for the Court. ¶ 1. Late one evening in July 2001, Shenandoah Clark got behind the wheel of his friend’s 2000 Toyota Tundra TRD truck (the truck) in Tupelo, Mississippi, to drive them to a casino out of town. While driving, Clark crashed the truck. Thereafter, Clark suffered severe spinal injuries, causing him to become a quadriplegic. Clark and his then-wife, Christie Johnston Clark (Christie), sued Toyota Motor Sa
Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.public domain
661 So.2d 503 (1995) Robert Terrell MARANTO and Vicki Maranto, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 25114-CA. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. May 10, 1995. Order on Rehearing August 23, 1995. *505 Joseph W. Gr
USA v. Alabama Power Companypublic domain
*1280 JORDAN, Circuit Judge: This case, brought by the United States against Alabama Power Company for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., has lasted for over a decade, lending some literal support to Justice Holmes’ quip that “[l]awyers spend their pr
Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.public domain
(2008) VERITAS OPERATING CORPRATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant. Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Veritas Operating Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and Veritas Software Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Counterclaim Defendants. No. C06-0703-JCC. United States District Cou
In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.public domain
OPINION Sontchi, J. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is a motion for reconsideration of an order approving, among other things, a Termination Fee1 in the amount of $275 million. The Court is taking the extraordinary step of reconsidering its order entered over one year ago because its approval of the Termination Fee was based upon a fundamental misapprehension of
Finch v. Covil Corp.public domain
Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge Ann Finch sued Covil Corporation and others for the wrongful death of her late husband, Franklin Finch, who died from mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. She resolved or dismissed her claims against all defendants but Covil, and the case was tried from October 1 through October 5, 2018. The Court charged the jury on North Carolina state law negligence and failure to warn claims. The jury
Surfcast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION, CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER AND ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., Chief Judge. SurfCast, Inc. (SurfCast) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft *140Corporation (Microsoft), alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,724,-403 (filed Oct. 30, 2000) (the '403 Patent). The parties dispute a numb
Dataquill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp.public domain
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART HTC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT [Doc. No. 133] (2) DENYING HTC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT [Doc. No. 130] (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART HTC’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT OPINIONS OF JOSEPH GEMINI [Doc. No. 129] IRMAE. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge.
ACCEPTED 13-15-00506-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 12/17/2015 5:34:25 PM
Arnold v. Airborne Freight Corp.public domain
WATKINS, Judge. The primary issue in this appeal is whether the driver of a delivery van was the employee of the company that hired her, or of the company whose logo she was wearing and whose deliveries she was making at the time her van collided with the automobile in which the plaintiff was a passenger, or of both companies. The Accident On September 26, 1991, plaintiff Roger Dal
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control Districtpublic domain
217 P.3d 1220 (2009) A TUMBLING-T RANCHES, an Arizona general partnership; Russell Badley Farms, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Rosemary L. Edwards, individually and as Trustee of the Rosemary L. Edwards Trust; John E. Fornes, Jr. and Shelley Fornes, husband and wife; PJ Farms Limited Partnership, an Arizona limited partnership; J&A Fornes, II, an Arizona general partnership; Delmar John and Jean John, husband and wife dba Delmar
Golonka v. General Motors Corp.public domain
65 P.3d 956 (2003) 204 Ariz. 575 Eugene GOLONKA, surviving husband of Ruth Bertha Golonka, deceased, on his behalf; and for and on behalf of Carol Chapman, Edward Golonka, Jack Golonka, Laurence Golonka, and Richard Golonka, surviving children of Ruth Bertha Golonka, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 00-0467.