Cases

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-2552 DEREK THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACQUELINE CARMICHAEL, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southe

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-2552 DEREK THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JACQUELINE CARMICHAEL, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southe

585 F.Supp.2d 308 (2008) Luann RUGGERI, Ricardo Jaramillo, and Prakash Naik on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant. Civil No. 3:06cv1085 (JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. November 17, 2008. *309 Andrew W. Skolnick, Brian J. Whe

206 B.R. 95 (1997) In re William SHAFFER, Jr., t/a Bill Shaffer Construction, Debtor. Joseph ATCAVAGE and Jacqueline Atcavage, Plaintiffs, v. William SHAFFER, Jr., t/a Bill Shaffer Construction, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 5-95-00111, Adv. No. 5-95-0367. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. March 17, 1997. *96 Mic

235 N.J. Super. 1 (1989) 561 A.2d 607 TOWNSHIP OF WEST MILFORD, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. GERALD AND JUANITA VAN DECKER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued May 22, 1989. Decided June 21, 1989. *3 Before Judges PETRELLA, SHEBELL and LANDAU. Juanita Van D

Freedman, J. The petitioner appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner argues *692that his conviction for escape from custody must be vacated because General Statutes § 53a-1711 does not apply to out-of-state inmates in temporary custody pursuant to the Interstat

375 F.Supp.2d 99 (2005) SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., et al. v. SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC. No. 3:00CV754 (JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. July 12, 2005. Elizabeth A. Gardner, Richard L. DeLucia, Richard S. Gresalfi, Thomas R. Makin, Kenyon & Kenyon, Richard M. Steuer, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Garrard Russ Beeney, Jeffrey Scott, Sullivan &a;

The plaintiff John A. Campbell brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as for compensatory damages by his father and next friend Anthony Campbell. The plaintiff, a senior at New Milford High School, claims that an attendance policy promulgated by the defendant, the New Milford board of education, violates various provisions of the United States and Connecticut constitutions and is preempted by General Statutes §§ 10-184,

359 F.Supp.2d 173 (2005) SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., et al. v. SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC. No. 3:00 CV 754(JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. March 4, 2005. *174 Elizabeth A. Gardner, Richard L. Delucia, Richard S. Gresalfi, Thomas R. Makin, Kenyon & Kenyon, Richard M. Steuer, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Gar

117 N.H. 564 (1977) JACQUELINE A. BRUYERE & a. v. JADE REALTY CORPORATION. No. 7703. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. June 27, 1977. Devine, Millimet, Stahl & Branch, of Manchester, William S. Gannon and Gregory D. Prymak, of Manchester (Mr. Prymak orally), for the plaintiffs. *565 Woo

958 F.Supp. 745 (1997) Robert FREEDMAN, et al. v. VALUE HEALTH, INC., et al. Civil Action No. 3:95CV2038 (JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. March 3, 1997. *746 *747 *748 Leonard Barrack, Jeffrey W. Golan, Daniel E. Bacine, Barrack, Rodos &

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J), entered October 29, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries, denied plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) for relief from a judgment dismissing their complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs. On December 10, 2009, this Court dismissed, for failure to perfect, plaintiffs’ consolidated appeal from (1) the September 19, 2008 judgment (Jacquelin

826 F.Supp.2d 263 (2011) ADMINISTRATORS OF the TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND (a/k/a Tulane University), et al., Plaintiffs, v. IPSEN PHARMA, S.A.S. (f/k/a Societe Conseils de Recherches et D'Applications Scientifiques SAS), Defendant. Civil Case No. 09-2428 (RJL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. December 2, 2011. Peter M. Brody, Ropes & Gray, Washi

RULING ON MOTIONS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION [DKT.# s 135 & 137] HALL, District Judge. These two consolidated cases, Freedman v. Value Health, Inc. and Bash v. Value Health, Inc., arise from events surrounding a merger on July 28, 1995 between Value Health, Inc. and Diagnostek, Inc. Plaintiffs in both actions allege that corporate and individual defendants made a series of false and misleadin

157 F.Supp.2d 172 (2001) SONY ELECTRONICS, INC. Consumer Electronics Assn. Electronic Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Soundview Technologies, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Sony Corporation of America, et al Counterclaim Defendants. No. 3:00CV754 JBA. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. July 16, 2001.

*********************************************** 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

Emigrant Bank v Cohen (2022 NY Slip Op 02532) Emigrant Bank v Cohen 2022 NY Slip Op 02532 Decided on April 20, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Dillon, J., J. Published by New York State Law Repo

157 F.Supp.2d 190 (2001) SONY ELECTRONICS, INC. Consumer Electronics Association; Electronic Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. Soundview Technologies, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Sony Corporation of America, Et al. Counterclaim Defendants. No. 3:00CV754(JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. June 14, 2001.

Brant, J. This is an appeal by defendant Tony Eskanian (“Eskanian”) of a pretrial order striking various affirmative defenses he had filed in this commercial eviction action involving the operation of a gas station. After the defenses were struck, a second trial court judge granted summary judgment to plaintiff Petro Group, Inc. (“Petro”), at the urging of counsel for both parties, for possession of the commercial properly and f

771 F.Supp.2d 32 (2011) ADMINISTRATORS OF The TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND (a/k/a Tulane University), et al., Plaintiffs, v. IPSEN PHARMA, S.A.S. (f/k/a Societe Conseils De Recherches et D'Applications Scientifiques SAS), et al., Defendants. Civil Case No. 09-2428 (RJL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 23, 2011. *35