Cases

Case: 19-1526 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 10/27/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CORCAMORE, LLC, Appellant v. SFM, LLC, Appellee ______________________ 2019-1526 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Tra

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A22-1057 Court of Appeals Moore, III, J. Took no part, Procaccini, Hennesy, J.J. Fitness International, LLC, Appellant, vs. Filed: July 24, 2024

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

USCA11 Case: 19-13390 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/12/2023 Page: 1 of 40 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-13390 ____________________ FCOA LLC,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EUNG KWON KIM et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 23-1101 (TJK) DP CAPITAL LLC et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Eung Kwon Kim and his company, Kim Georgia Ave, LLC, allege that Defendants exe- cuted a fraudulent scheme to scam them out of $

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

Case: 22-1630 Document: 92 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ HARRIS BRUMFIELD, TRUSTEE FOR ASCENT TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant v. IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1630 ______________________

Case: 22-1630 Document: 92 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ HARRIS BRUMFIELD, TRUSTEE FOR ASCENT TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant v. IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1630 ______________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 225PA21-2 Filed 13 December 2024 NORTH STATE DELI, LLC d/b/a LUCKY’S DELICATESSEN; MOTHERS & SONS, LLC d/b/a MOTHERS & SONS TRATTORIA; MATEO TAPAS, L.L.C. d/b/a MATEO BAR DE TAPAS; SAINT JAMES SHELLFISH LLC d/b/a SAINT JAMES SEAFOOD; CALAMARI ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PARIZADE; BIN 54, LLC d/b/a BIN 54; ARYA, INC. d/b/a CITY KITCHEN and VILLAGE BURGER; GRASSHOPPER LLC d/b/a NA

CENTERPLAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. v. CITY OF HARTFORD (SC 20526) Robinson, C. J., and D’Auria, Kahn, Ecker and Suarez, Js. Syllabus The plaintiffs, C Co. and D Co., which had contracted with the defendant, the city of Hartford, to construct a baseball stadium, appealed from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the city. The city had entered into an agreement with an architectural firm, P Co

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

No. 11 May 4, 2023 23 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE ex rel Ellen F. ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Oregon, Petitioner on Review, v. LIVING ESSENTIALS, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; and Innovati

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 606 U. S. Part 1 Pages 100–145 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 20, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-2185 REGINALD CLAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the N

303 Argued and submitted March 16, judgment of Tax Court affirmed July 1, 2021 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Oregon, Defendant-Respondent. (TC 5236 (Control), 5269, 5291) (SC S067283) 490 P3d 149 Level 3 challenged the Tax Court’

OPINION AND ORDER Michael H. Simon, District Judge In 2005, two sophisticated companies— Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and Sanmina-SCI Corporation (“Sanmina”) — entered into an agreement in which Intel agreed to disclose to Sanmina highly confidential information that Sanmina requested as part of its attempt to develop potentially lucrative technology that would be compatible with Intel products. In return for

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

USCA11 Case: 20-11326 Date Filed: 10/19/2021 Page: 1 of 33 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-11326 ____________________ CHESHIRE BRIDGE HOLDINGS, LLC, CHESHIRE VISUALS, LLC, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants, versus CITY OF ATLANTA, GE