Cases

ROGER A. PAGE, JUSTICE The primary issue in this appeal is whether a surviving spouse maintains priority to file a wrongful death action when the decedent's child has also filed a wrongful death action in which the child alleges that the surviving spouse negligently caused the decedent's death. The trial court dismissed the daughter's wrongful death complaint, but the Court of Appeals

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) IN RE INTEREST OF GRACIE L. NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). IN RE INTEREST OF GRACIE L., A CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. STATE OF NEB

04/12/2022 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 9, 2022 Session Heard at Lipscomb University1 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. AMANDA L. MOORE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sumner County No. 2017-CR-118 Dee David Gay, Judge ______________________________

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court enforcing an Internal Revenue summons, Title 26 U.S.C. § 7602, requiring the respondent to produce certain books and records of an alleged Ohio corporation. A brief review of the proceedings in the District Court is appropriate. The petitio

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge Armada (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. (“Armada”) has sued Amcol International Corporation (“Amcol”) and two of ■ its wholly-owned subsidiaries, American Colloid Company (“ACC”) and Volclay International Corporation (“Volclay”) (Amcol, ACC, and Volclay collectively, “the defendants”), for causes of action under federal law, Illinois law,'and m

i. Severability Cape Publications found that the title of the statute, "Action relating to *634childhood sexual abuse or childhood sexual assault," did not adequately provide notice of the statute's effect on the sealing of records and thus Section (3) was unconstitutional. Defendants argue that Section (2) of the statute is inseverab

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOSEPH C. BAMFORD and YOUNG MIN BAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. 2019-0005-JTL PENFOLD, L.P.; DELAWARE VALLEY ) REGIONAL CENTER, LLC; WEST 36TH, INC.; ) JOSEPH MANHEIM; and REATH & CO., LLC; ) )

Prost, Chief Judge. *1367 Appellant VirnetX Inc. ("VirnetX") appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") related to three inter partes reexaminations maintained by Apple Inc. ("Apple") and Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco"). The United States Patent and Trademark Of

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PROFECTUS TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants DELL INC., APPLE INC., SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, HEWLETT-PACKAR

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ENHABIT, INC.; ADVANCED ) HOMECARE MANAGEMENT, ) LLC; and ENCOMPASS HEALTH ) CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2022-0837-LWW ) NAUTIC PARTNERS IX

ORDER Per Curiam. On October 27, 2015, we ordered the parties to prepare to show cause at oral argument as to why sanctions should not be imposed for violation of Federal Circuit Rule 28(d).'The parties addressed the issue of sanctions at oral argument and refiled corrected briefing and appendices following oral argument. Regarding the show-cause order on October 27, 2015, we decline to impose sanctions f

PROST, Chief Judge. Apple Inc. appeals from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in which a jury found that Apple infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 (“'135 patent”), 7,418,504 (“'504 patent”), 7,490,151 (“'151 patent”), and 7,921,211 (“'211 patent”). The jury further found that none of the infringed claims were invalid and awarded da

198 Cal.App.3d 533 (1988) 243 Cal. Rptr. 763 In re BRITTANY H., a Minor. DAVID J. et al., Petitioners and Respondents, v. EVETTE H., Objector and Appellant. Docket No. F007576. Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District. February 10, 1988. *539 COUNSEL Gregory M. Chappel, under appointment b

MEMORANDUM OPINION Elizabeth K. Dillon, United States District Judge Plaintiff John L. McKinney, Jr. filed this action against his employer, G4S Government Solutions, Inc. (G4S), asserting the following claims: (1) a hostile work environment claim under both 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, based on his race (African-American); (2) a retaliatio

OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs bring a would-be class action alleging that China Agritech, Inc. (“China Agritech”) and its managers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Plaintiffs were unnamed plaintiffs in two earlier would-be class actions against many of the same defendants based on the same unde

OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: Defendants-Appellants Sweetwater Union High School District and eight of its administrators and board members (collectively “Sweetwater”) appeal the district court’s grant of declaratory and injunctive relief to Plaintiffs-Appellees Veronica Ollier, Naudia Rangel, Maritza Rangel, Amanda Hernandez, and Arianna Hernandez (collective

FISHER, Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW We are presented with the question of whether there is subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Eleven years ago, Appel-lee EOTT Energy, then known as Enron, filed this action in Montana state court. Appellant Icarom, then the Insurance Cor*995poration of Ireland (“ICI”), removed this action to federal court on t

OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge: We live in an age in which the intercon-nectivity of a wide range of modern technological products is vital. To achieve that interconnection, patent-holders often join together in compacts requiring licensing certain patents on reasonable and non *1030

[Cite as State v. Joiner, 2021-Ohio-359.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. :