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 “InStore Products USA Inc. v. United States”
Dolly, Inc. v. United Statespublic domain
293 F.Supp.2d 1340 (2003) DOLLY, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. SLIP OP. 03-137, No. 98-04-00677. United States Court of International Trade. October 22, 2003. Neville Peterson LLP (John M. Peterson, Curtis W. Knauss), Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; John J. Mahon, Acting Attorney in Cha
227 F.Supp.2d 494 (2002) X-IT PRODUCTS, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. WALTER KIDDE PORTABLE EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant. No. Civ.A. 2:00cv513. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. June 25, 2002. *495 *496 *497
Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.public domain
Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge Plaintiff Chamberlain Group, Inc. ("Chamberlain") won a jury verdict against Defendants Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., One World Technologies, Inc., *986OWT Industries, Inc., Et Technology (WUXI) Co. Ltd., and Ryobi Technologies (collectively, "TTI"), in which the jury fou
789 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011) MINNESOTA MADE HOCKEY, INC., Plaintiff, v. MINNESOTA HOCKEY, INC.; District 6 of Minnesota Amateur Hockey Association; Bloomington Jefferson Hockey Booster Club; Bloomington Kennedy Hockey Association; Bloomington Youth Hockey Association; Burnsville Hockey Club; Chaska Chanhassen Hockey Association; Eden Prairie Hockey Association; Edina Hockey Association; Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association; New Prague Hockey Associat
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ELAINE E. BUCKLO, District Judge. Before the court is National Union’s bill of costs. AMICO has filed objections to the bill, and USF & G has joined in those objections. For the reasons that follow, I tax the amount of $13,759.65 against AMI-CO and USF & G, jointly and severally. I tax an additional amount, $15.80, solely against USF & G.
661 F.Supp.2d 1039 (2009) INSIGNIA SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NEWS AMERICA MARKETING IN-STORE, INC., Defendant. News America Marketing In Store, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Insignia Systems, Inc., and Scott Drill, Counterclaim Defendants. Civil No. 04-4213 (JRT/AJB). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. September 30, 2009.
Neuson v. Macy's Department Stores, Inc.public domain
fl A trial court entered findings and concluded that an employer was entitled to a presumption that it mailed an election form, which permitted an employee to opt out of mandatory arbitration of employment-related disputes. The employee’s discrimination suit was stayed following the trial court’s order. We conclude that the court was not privileged to weigh the evidence in this summary proceeding. And we are unable to conclude that the employer is entitl
United States v. International Fidelity Insurancepublic domain
999 F.Supp. 1420 (1998) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and Howard W. McDaniel, Defendants, and INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Katherine T. McDANIEL, Third-Party Defendant. No. 95-1169-WEB. United States District Court, D. Kansas. January 29, 1998.
Neuson v. MACY'S DEPT. STORES INC.public domain
249 P.3d 1054 (2011) Anjelia NEUSON, Appellant, v. MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORES INC., a corporation, Respondent. No. 28968-1-III. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3. March 22, 2011. Gregory George Staeheli, Law Office of Gregory Staeheli, Spokane, WA, for Appellant. Barry Alan Johnsrud, Kristin Suzanne Bell Jackson Lewis LLP, Seattle, WA, Betty Thorne Tie
546 F.Supp.2d 155 (2008) FLOORGRAPHICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NEWS AMERICA MARKETING INSTORE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 04-3500 (AET). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. February 5, 2008. *157 Nathan Marc Edelstein, Nathan M. Edelstein, PC, Lawrenceville, NJ, for Plaintiff.
Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc.public domain
3 A.3d 919 (2010) 298 Conn. 414 Leo A. FISHER III v. BIG Y FOODS, INC. No. 18406. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued January 5, 2010. Decided September 21, 2010. *921 Sandra Rachel Stanfield, with whom, on the brief, was David A. Estabrook, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).
Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc.public domain
509 F.3d 1168 (2007) Betty DUKES; Patricia Surgeson; Cleo Page; Deborah Gunter; Karen Williamson; Christine Kwapnoski; Edith Arana, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WAL-MART, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Betty Dukes; Patricia Surgeson; Cleo Page; Deborah Gunter; Karen Williamson; Christine Kwapnoski; Edith Arana, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 04-16688, 04-16720. U
Kean v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.public domain
899 N.E.2d 416 (2008) Nancy KEAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Wal-Mart. Com, U.S.A., LLC, and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Defendants-Appellees (Chip Russell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Intervenor and Plaintiff-Appellant; The Department of Revenue and Alexi Giannoulias as Treasurer of the State of Illinois, Intervenors and Defen
Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.public domain
177 Cal.App.4th 1235 (2009) JOSHUA MORGAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. No. B206788. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four. September 23, 2009. *1240 Kirtland & Packard and Robert K. Friedl for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Eagan
R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Sopublic domain
748 F.Supp.2d 244 (2010) R.F.M.A.S., INC., Plaintiff, v. Mimi SO, et al., Defendants. No. 06 Civ. 13114(VM)(MHD). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 12, 2010. *246 Kenneth S. Feldman, Law Offices of Stephen E. Feldman, P.C., Stephen Edward Feldman, Paul J. Burgo, Steven Michael Crosby, Feldman Law Group, New Yor
275 F.Supp.2d 543 (2003) VIDEO PIPELINE, INC., Plaintiff, v. BUENA VISTA HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. and Miramax Film Corp., Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, v. Video Pipeline, Inc., Counterclaim-Defendant. Civil No. 00-5236(JBS). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. August 7, 2003.
192 F.Supp.2d 321 (2002) VIDEO PIPELINE, INC., Plaintiff, v. BUENA VISTA HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc., and Miramax Film Corp., Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, v. Video Pipeline, Inc., Counterclaim-Defendant. Civil No. 00-5236 (JBS). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 28, 2002.
Harkins v. Riverboat Services, Inc.public domain
286 F.Supp.2d 976 (2003) John H. HARKINS, Peter Stofcik, Jr., Wallie Del Toro, Ofelia Cuevas, Howard Cannon, David A. Williams, Lakesa Hill-Hunter, Lisa Hill, Michael S. Metevia, Daniel T. O'Brien, Louis E. Kelly, Darrin Benton, Shayn Keeton, Dennis Arnold, Tammie Jablonski, Plaintiffs, v. RIVERBOAT SERVICES, INC., Showboat Marina Casino Partnership, and Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Defendants. No. 99 C 123.
Gerlinger v. Amazon. Com, Inc.public domain
311 F.Supp.2d 838 (2004) Gary GERLINGER, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the California general public, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; Borders Group, Inc.; Borders, Inc.; Borders Online, LLC; and Borders Online, Inc., Defendants. No. C 02-05238 MHP. United States District Court, N.D. California. March 23, 2004.
Valve Corp. v. Sierra Entertainment Inc.public domain
431 F.Supp.2d 1091 (2004) VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Plaintiff, v. SIERRA ENTERTAINMENT INC., (Aka Sierra on Line Inc.), a Delaware corporation; Vivendi Universal Games, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Vivendi Universal, S.A., a French foreign corporation, Defendants. Sierra Entertainment Inc., (Aka Sierra on Line Inc.), a Delaware corporation; and Vivendi Universal Games, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Counter-Claimants,