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 “ENGINES, INC. v. MAN ENGINES & COMPONENTS, INC.”
Bourke v. Man Engines & Components, Inc.public domain
Donna F. Martinez, United States Magistrate Judge Plaintiffs, Frederic A. Bourke, Jr. ("Bourke") and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ("Fireman's Fund"), as subrogee of Bourke, bring this diversity action against defendant MAN Engines & Components, Inc. ("MAN") alleging that defendant breached express and implied warranties in connection with two diesel marine engines that defendant sold to Bourke. Pending before the court is de
Shows v. MAN ENGINES & COMPONENTS, INC.public domain
364 S.W.3d 348 (2012) Doug SHOWS, Appellant, v. MAN ENGINES & COMPONENTS, INC. and Man Nutzfahrzeuge Aktiengesellschaft, Appellees. No. 14-09-00895-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). March 15, 2012. Rehearing En Banc Overruled May 1, 2012. *350 Michael Andrew Harris, Houston, for appellant.<
Justice WILLETT delivered the opinion of the Court. This breach-of-warranty case poses a fundamental question: Does the implied warranty of merchantability extend to pur *134 chasers of used goods? Our answer: It depends. A manufacturer largely controls its own fate. When a m
March 15, 2012 JUDGMENT The Fourteenth Court of Appeals DOUG SHOWS, Appellant NO. 14-09-00895-CV V. MAN ENGINES & COMPONENTS, INC. AND MAN NUTZFAHRZEUGE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Appellees ____________________ This court today heard a motion fo
Motion for Rehearing Granted; Reversed and Remanded; Opinion of October 11, 2011 Withdrawn, and Substitute Opinion filed March 15, 2012. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-09-00895-CV DOUG SHOWS, Appellant V. MAN ENGINES & COMPONENTS, INC. AND MAN NUTZFAHRZEUGE AK
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0210p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ BONFIGLIOLI USA, INC., │ Plaintiff-Appel
Powers v. Lycoming Enginespublic domain
*417 MEMORANDUM OPINION SAVAGE, District Judge. In these two consolidated putative nationwide class actions, we conduct a choice-of-law analysis and then re-evaluation of whether the plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23’s requirements for class certification. Moving for class certification under Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), the p
Downs v. Perstorp Components, Inc.public domain
126 F.Supp.2d 1090 (1999) Andrew A. DOWNS and Maria Downs, Plaintiffs, v. PERSTORP COMPONENTS, INC. and ICI Americas, Inc., Defendants. No. 3:96-CV-597. United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee at Knoxville. December 27, 1999. *1091 Carl R. Ogle, Jr., Law Offices of Carl R. Ogle, Jr., Jefferson City, TN, for Andrew A Downs, M
United States v. Wenxia Manpublic domain
WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge: Wenxia Man appeals her conviction and sentence for conspiracy to export defense articles without a license or written approval in violation of the Arms Control Export Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2778 ; see also
Holcim (US) Inc. v. ACMS Group, Inc.public domain
IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED Jul 10 2025, 8:40 am Holcim (US) Inc., CLERK Appellant/Defendant
Broadband Itv, Inc. v. amazon.com, Inc.public domain
Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BROADBAND ITV, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2023-1107 _________________
Broadband Itv, Inc. v. amazon.com, Inc.public domain
Case: 23-1107 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BROADBAND ITV, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2023-1107 _________________
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.public domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 21-16506 Plaintiff-counter- defendant-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05640- v. YGR APPLE, INC., Defendant-counter- OPINION claimant- Appellee. EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 21-16695
Derian, Inc.public domain
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - ) ) Derian, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62957 ) Under Contract No. W912EF-19-C-0006 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Mark Jensen President APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michae
No. 126,005 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS HERITAGE TRACTOR, INC., Appellant, v. EVERGY KANSAS CENTRAL, INC., Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The Electric Public Utilities Act, K.S.A. 66-101 et se
Case: 21-2167 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ COOPERATIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. KOLLECTIVE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2021-2167 ______________________ Appeal from the United States D
Lashify, Inc. v. Itcpublic domain
Case: 23-1245 Document: 110 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LASHIFY, INC., Appellant v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee QINGDAO HOLLYREN COSMETICS CO. LTD., DBA HOLLYREN, QINGDAO XIZI INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LTD., DBA XIZI LASHES, QINGDAO LASHBEAUTY COSMETIC CO.
Tecsec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.public domain
Case: 19-2192 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TECSEC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ADOBE INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant SAS INSTITUTE, INC., SAP AMERICA, INC., SAP AG, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., SYBASE, INC., SOFTWARE AG, SOFTWARE AG, INC., ORACLE CORPORATIO
OPINION OF THE COURT McKee, Circuit Judge. We are asked to decide, among other things, if a seaman’s failure to disclose a prior injury on a job application causes the seaman to forfeit his entitlement to maintenance and cure. We hold that, under the circumstances presented here, no such forfeiture has occurred and we will thus affirm the district cou
FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Once again, we must determine whether certain refurbishment of a patented article constitutes permissible repair or infringing reconstruction. The district court held that what was done here was repair. We affirm. I This case involves commercial two-sided cooking devices used primarily to cook ham