Cases

773 F.Supp.2d 1149 (2011) PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs, v. BC TECHNICAL, Defendant. Case No. 2:08-CV-639 CW-SA. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. February 16, 2011. *1154 Bryan C. Graff, Roger J. Kindley, Ryan Swanson & Cleveland PLLC, Seattle, WA, Stanley J. Preston,

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TAMM. TAMM, Circuit Judge: Mobil Oil Corporation (Mobil) seeks reversal of the portion of a June 21,1983 district court order that unsealed 3800 pages of deposition transcripts and 425 accompanying exhibits. The depositions and exhibits were initially designated confidential by Mobil pursuant to a “blanket”

747 F.Supp.2d 730 (2010) HEALIX INFUSION THERAPY, INC., Plaintiff, v. HELIX HEALTH, LLC, and Steven Murphy, Defendants. Civil Action No. H-09-2072. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. September 30, 2010. *734 Scott Weiss, Corporate Counsel, Sugar Land, TX, for Plaintiff. Bryan Haynes, Scheef & S

2025 IL App (1st) 231911 No. 1-23-1911 First Division March 31, 2025 ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY F. ATLAS, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND'.........................................................702 A. The Primary and Primary Runoff Elections ............................702 B. Plaintiffs’Allegations and Evidence....................................703

OPINION CONTI, Chief District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the court are the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 113) filed on behalf of defendant Collectcents, Inc., o/a Credit Bureau of Canada Collections (“Collectcents”) and the motion for summary judgment (ECF No; 119) filed on behalf of defendant Commerce Energy, Inc. d/b/a Just Energy (“Commerce Energy”). This court has juri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 20-3590 (JEB) META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION How times have changed. Not so long ago, a company called Facebook so dominated the provision of personal social-networking services that a

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss *1178for Lack of Jurisdiction and Memorandum in Support, filed February 9, 2016 (Doc. 14)(“MTD”); and (ii) Plaintiff Carol Warren’s Joint Response to -the United States’ Motion to Dismiss

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [4] NANCY G. EDMUNDS, District Judge. Plaintiffs Green Party of Michigan, Libertarian Party of Michigan, Reform Party of Michigan, Metro Times, Inc., and David Forsmark d/b/a Winning Strategies filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.615c, which requires the Michi

27 F.Supp.2d 754 (1998) N.W. ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant. Civil Action No. H-97-0196. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. February 18, 1998. As Amended June 9, 1998. Opinion Supplementing Decision on Reconsideration, June 11, 1998.[*] Additional Sup

OPINION LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Editor Note: The paragraphs related to headnotes 1-105 are found on the supplemental pieces of this opinion on Westlaw. Part 1 is 2014 WL 815553; Part 2 is 2014 WL 815613; Part 3 is 2014 WL 815715; Part 4 is 2014 WL 815869 [Head-notes 1-2]; Part 5 is 2014 WL 815923 [Headnotes 3-51]; Part 6 is 2014 WL 815961 [Headnotes 52-87]; Part 7 is 2014 WL 816086 [Headnotes 88-

ORDER AND OPINION WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On March 29, 2016, the Court held a bench trial and heard evidence in this patent infringement case. Before the Court are several equitable remedies and defens*864es raised by the Parties, in addition to open questions of law under 35 U.S.C.

SELYA, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Brenda Katz insists that defendant-appellee Pershing, LLC failed to protect sensitive nonpublic personal information as it was obligated to do under both contract and consumer protection laws. To vindicate this concern, she sued the defendant on her behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated. The district court dismissed her putative

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE FACEBOOK, INC. : CONSOLIDATED SECTION 220 LITIGATION : C.A. No. 2018-0661-JRS MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: March 7, 2019 Date Decided: May 30, 2019 Revised: May 31, 2019 Samuel L. Closic, Esquire of Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware and Frank R. Schirripa, Es

541 F.Supp.2d 912 (2008) GREEN PARTY OF MICHIGAN, Libertarian Party of Michigan, Reform Party of Michigan, Metro Times, Inc., and David Forsmark d/b/a Winning Strategies, Plaintiffs, v. Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn LAND, Defendants. No. 08-10149. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. March 26, 2008. *

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE FACEBOOK, INC. : CONSOLIDATED SECTION 220 LITIGATION : C.A. No. 2018-0661-JRS MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: March 7, 2019 Date Decided: May 30, 2019 Samuel L. Closic, Esquire of Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware and Frank R. Schirripa, Esquire and Daniel B. Rehns, Esquire of Hach Rose S

FILED Appellate Case: 19-4130 Document: 010110703167 United States CourtPage: Date Filed: 06/29/2022 of Appeals 1 Tenth Circuit June 29, 2022

111 F.Supp.2d 294 (2000) UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Shawn C. REIMERDES, et al., Defendants. No. 00 Civ. 0277 (LAK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 17, 2000. As Amended September 6, 2000. *295 *296 *29

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-821 (Filed: 13 December 2022) * ************************************** INGHAM REG. MED. CENTER, * n/k/a MCLAREN GREATER LANSING, * et al., * * Plaintiffs, * Breach of Contract; Mutual Mistake of Fact;

OPINION DAMICH, Judge. On June 22, 1999, the Defendant filed a motion to compel that raised three discreet issues. With admirable professionalism, the parties expeditiously completed briefing the contentious legal issues to maintain the schedule set for this case. The Court, after hearing oral argument, ruled on the motion to compel on July 14, 1999. The ruling, however, did not explain the Cou