Cases

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOEL Z. HYATT and ALBERT A. ) GORE, JR., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 11465-VCG ) AL JAZEERA AMERICA HOLDINGS ) II, LLC and AL JAZEERA ) INTERNATIONAL (USA) INC.,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) GILBERT P. HYATT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 05-2310 (RCL) ) Civil Action No. 09-1864 (RCL) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1872 (RCL) ) ANDREI IANCU, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINIONl I. Background Before the Court is a trio of actions brought under 35 U.S.C. §145, related to three of Gilbert Hyatt’s applications to patent features of his “600- family” and “700-family” specifications that purport to describe innovations M

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) GILBERT P. HYATT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 05-2310 (RCL) ) Civil Action No. 09-1864 (RCL) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1869 (RCL) ) Civil Action No. 09-1872 (RCL) ANDREI IANCU, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ` I. BACKGROUND Before the Court is the defendant’s asserted affirmative defense of prosecution laches in the four above-captioned cases. Prosecution laches is an equit

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25b0001p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ IN RE: HUMAN HOUSING HENRIETTA HYATT, LLC, │ Debtor. │ ___________________________________________ │ CLEARVIEW EASTERN FUND, LLC; PAULETTE LONG; │ C

133 Nev., Advance Opinion I OZ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF THE No. 53264 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. GILBERT P. HYATT, FILED Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

133 Nev., Advance Opinion I OZ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF THE No. 53264 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. GILBERT P. HYATT, FILED Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

Greaney, J. This is a negligence action brought by Massachusetts plaintiffs against a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, based on events that took place in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sylvia and Edward Nierman, seek damages for injuries allegedly sustained on January 15, 1994, in an accident at the defendant corporation’s (Hyatt’s) Hyatt Regency Hotel at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport (Hyatt Regency

325 F.3d 1114 PACIFIC BELL, a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, andUnited States of America, Intervenor,v.PAC-WEST TELECOMM, INC.; Public Utilities Commission of the State of California; Richard A. Bilas, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California in their official capacity; Henry M. Duque; Joel Z. Hyatt; Josiah Neeper; Carl W. Wood, Commissioners of the Public Utilities Commission of the State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00599-CV Stephen R. Doroghazi, Cynthia Doroghazi, and Stephen P. Carrigan, Appellants v. Texas Austin Hotel Realty, Inc.; Interstate Management Company; Interstate Hotels and Resorts; Miriam Moorman, Hyatt Corporation; Chris Dixon; Preservation Assessment Services, LLC dba Agua Terra Assessments; Fine Family Corporation; Sele

302 Md. 683 (1985) 490 A.2d 1224 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. JOEL Z. HYATT. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. PHILIP HAYDEN MANNING, WALTER DAVID WATTS, AND CLIFFORD ALAN WILPON. Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) Nos. 19, 32, September Term, 1983. Court of Appeals of Maryland. April 23, 1985. Melvin Hirshman, Bar

PER CURIAM: Mattel, Inc. (Mattel) initiated these actions, seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity with respect to United States Letters Patent 4,016,540 (the ’540 patent), issued to Gilbert P. Hyatt, and 4,038,640 (the ’640 patent), issued to Gilbert P. Hyatt, among others, and assigned to Micro Computer, Inc. (MCI). Hyatt counterclaimed, alleging that certain handheld elec

236 F.3d 684 (Fed. Cir. 2001) UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION AND CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC., Defendants-Cross Appellants,andCHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant. 00-1053, 1059 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit DECIDED: January 5, 2001

COFFEY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant, McGraw-Edison Company (“McGraw-Edison”), brought this action against the defendants-appellees, Walt Disney Productions (“Disney”) and Bally Manufacturing Corporation (“Bally”), alleging that the defendants’ use of the plaintiff’s TRON trademark violates sections 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA PAUL LAGUDI, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND No. 80950 WILLIAM TODD PONDER, AN INDIVIDUAL, Appellants, vs. FRESH MIX, LLC, A DELAWARE FR ED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND GET FRESH SALES,

JUSTICE BOATRIGHT delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶ 1 The Jim Hutton Foundation ("Foundation") owns surface-water rights in the Republican River Basin. It believes that permitted groundwater wells that people have begun to install in the underlying groundwater basin-the Northern High Plains Basin ("NHP Basin")-are not in fact pumping designated groundwater, and are therefore injur

888 F.Supp. 1069 (1995) BANGERT BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAS INSURANCE COMPANY and Allendale Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 93-Z-1937. United States District Court, D. Colorado. June 21, 1995. Nunc Pro Tunc July 29, 1994. *1070 William J. Bourke, III, Jack D. Henderso

J-S37005-22 2023 PA SUPER 46 CEDRIC GALETTE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : NJ TRANSIT AND JULIE E. MCCREY : :

OPINION PAEZ, Circuit Judge: Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“the Act”), Pub.L. 104-*1118104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified in part at 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-261), to foster competition in local and long distance telephone markets by neutralizing the competitive advantage inherent in incumbent carriers’ ownership of the physical networks

OPINION OF THE COURT (February 2, 2017) CABRET, Associate Justice. Eric A. Browne1 appeals the Superior Court’s May 4, 2015 judgment order directing him to remove the portion *330of his fence encroaching upon Quinton Stanley’s property. Because the Superior Court did not err in denying Browne re

ROGER T. BENITEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE A bench trial was held on the remaining counterclaim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit by Chartwell Advisory Group, Ltd. against the remaining casino counterclaim defendants1 and the counterclaim defendants' counter-counterclaims against Chartwell. Having heard the testimony and the evidence, the Court finds that Chartwell provided services for the cou