Cases

OPINION MOTZ, Senior District Judge: Chris Kohler appeals the district court’s rulings in favor of defendant Eddie Bauer following a bench trial on Kohler’s claims under the “Americans with Disabilities Act” (“ADA”). Eddie Bauer cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. We vacate and remand in part and affirm in part

ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge. Plaintiff Richard E. Petroske (“Petroske”) brought this action against Defendant Kohler Co. (“Kohler”), his former employer, seeking recovery of long-term disability benefits under an employee benefit plan. Petroske commenced this action in the Anoka County District Court in December 2010, alleging breach of contract. Kohler removed the case to federal court because

921 So.2d 436 (2005) KOHLER COMPANY, INC. v. Michelle Lenora MILLER and Cinram, Inc. 2030976. Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. August 5, 2005. *438 William A. Austill, William K. Bradford, and Andrew P. Anderson of Austill, Lewis & Simms, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant. Ralph W. Hornsby, Sr., Jeffrey G. Blackwell, a

Kohler v Polsky (2023 NY Slip Op 04373) Kohler v Polsky 2023 NY Slip Op 04373 Decided on August 23, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

*380OPINION TRACY CHRISTOPHER, Justice. After the jury failed to find that anyone caused her husband’s death, plaintiff Tammy DeWolf brought this appeal, alleging a variety of errors in the trial court’s interlocutory rulings and its conduct of the trial. On this record, we conclude that the trial court did not reversibly err in

MOORE, Circuit Judge. Kohler Co. appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ denial of judgment as a matter of law that claims 1-6, 8, and 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,314,044 and claims 26 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 7,832,196 (collectively “asserted claims”) would have been obvious and lack sufficient written description and the determination t

J-A23006-24 2024 PA Super 300 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOSHUA ANDREW SCIARRINO : : Appell

TAXIS, P. J., This matter comes before the court upon preliminary objections to a petition to open an adjudication. The petition to open was filed by the children of Robert F. Campbell1 contending that they were not given notice of the audit held on December 3, 1973, of the third account of The Fidelity Bank, and that they were parties in interest to whom notice should have been given. The third acc

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREW ROLEY, Nos. 21-15677 Plaintiff-Appellant/ 21-15830 Cross-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 5:18-cv-07537- BLF GOOGLE LLC,

J-A27041-23 2024 PA Super 101 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : :

J-E04002-24 2025 PA Super 138 ANN MARIE SWATT, PERSONAL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF : PENNSYLVANIA MADLYN BLUSIUS : : Appellant : : v. : : NOTTINGHAM VILLAGE; : NOTTINGHAM MANAGEMENT, LLC; : NOTTINGHAM VILLAGE RETIREMENT : CENTER, L

01/30/2018 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs May 1, 2017 ANDREW “ROME” WITHERS v. ROSALIND D. WITHERS Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-16-208 Jim Kyle, Chancellor ____________

485 F.3d 770 Richard JAKIMAS; Dianne Flynn, Association Member; Louis Ristagno, Association Member; All Other Association Members; John M. Adair; John J. Adzima; Bruce J. Aiello; Thomas Aiello; Jack Bailey; Gerald A. Barrett; Walter Beniuk; Bruce Blanchard; Rene Reis Braga; Tedeusz Bukowski; Edward Cabral; Angelo Capalbo; Richard Carlson; Ralph Caso; James Castelli; Samuel Castronovo, Jr.; Peter Chapman; Paul D. Ciuppa; Gary Cocozzo; Laura Carbo; A

305 F.Supp. 1017 (1969) NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. HOMANS-KOHLER, INC., J. J. O'Rourke d/b/a J. J. O'Rourke Electric Co., Air-Lite Products, Inc. and Howard W. Holmes, Milton E. Nelson and Harold Bateson, Co-Partners d/b/a Charles A. Maguire & Associates, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 3577. United States District Court D. Rhode Island. September 23, 1969.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Anthony W. Ishii, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE I. Introduction Plaintiff Marisol Gomez (“Plaintiff”) has filed separate motions, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f),1 to strike select affirmative defenses alleged by Defendant Bedrosian Farms, LLC (“Bedrosian”) (Doc. 11), and Defendant J. Jacobo Farm

OPINION DAY, Chief Judge. In this action the plaintiff as subrogee of the Gilbane Building Co. and the Industrial National Bank of Rhode Island seeks to recover from the defendants certain sums of money it alleges it paid to its subrogors as insureds under a certain policy of fire insurance it had issued for their benefit and the benefit of others described therein. In its amended complaint it alleges in

781 N.W.2d 706 (2010) 2010 WI App 50 Keith J. JOHNSON, Alf R. Johnson and Dolores R. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHBURN COUNTY and Town of Spooner, Defendants-Respondents, Washburn County Board of Supervisors and Spooner Town Board, Defendants. No. 2009AP371. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Submitted on Briefs September 22, 2009.

118 F.Supp.2d 92 (2000) I.P. LUND TRADING ApS and Kroin Inc., Plaintiffs, v. KOHLER CO. and Robern, Inc., Defendants. No. CIV. A. 97-10427-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. October 6, 2000. *93 Cornelius J. Moynihan, Jr., Steven N. Fuller, David H Gibbs, Jason C. Kravitz, Nixon Peabody, Allison E. Picott, Jason

Andrews, Judge. Appellant Eddie Thomas appeals from convictions of conspiracy to defraud the state and of theft by taking. Thomas seeks a reversal of these convictions on the grounds that the trial court’s charge to the jury was confusing and because the court did not permit Thomas’s counsel to ask voir dire questions about whether prospective jurors had an opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of appellant.

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge. This is a civil action brought by the United States, based upon the anti-trust laws. The gist of the complaint is that the defendant, a manufacturer of vitreous china and enamel plumbing fixtures and sanitary brass fittings, has restrained commerce by requiring dealers and others purchasing fixtures from it to buy its fittings as well. The prayer is for injunctive relief only. Th