Cases

23-407-cv Sharikov v. Philips Medical Systems MR, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ___________________________ August Term, 2023 (Submitted: October 20, 2023 Decided: June 4, 2024) Docket No. 23-407-cv

604 F.Supp.2d 325 (2009) AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. and Laserscope, Inc., Plaintiffs v. BIOLITEC, INC., et al., Defendants. C.A. No. 08-30061-MAP. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. March 26, 2009. *326 James F. Dedonato, Mark D. Giarratana, Eric E. Grondahl, Richard J. Twilley, McCarter & English, LLP, Franc

665 F.Supp.2d 1025 (2009) AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., and Laserscope, Plaintiffs, v. LASER PERIPHERALS, LLC, Defendant. Civil No. 08-4798 (JNE/FLN). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. October 13, 2009. *1026 Leland G. Hansen, Esq., and Scott P. McBride, Esq., McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., and Misti N. Okerlund,

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 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

628 Argued and submitted January 15; decision of Court of Appeals affirmed, decision of circuit court reversed, and case remanded to circuit court for further proceedings July 9, 2020 Scott Raymond BUSCH, Respondent on Review, and Deanne Marie BUSCH, Plaintiff, v. McINN

875 F.Supp. 748 (1995) Charles BOKIS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a AMS, Defendant. No. CIV-94-53-C. United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma. January 23, 1995. *749 *750 Kevin McClure, Oklahoma City, OK, for plaintiff. Richard M. Eldrid

22-1237 King v. Aramark Services Inc. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2023 (Argued: September 20, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2024) Docket No. 22-1237 KRISTEN KING, Plaintiff-Appellant,

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION ONE JAMES RAYMOND KING, ) No. ED111783 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Currently before the Court are an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23), Brief in Support (Doc. 24), and Statement of Undisputed Facts (Doc. 25) submitted by Defendants Kimbel Mechanical Systems (“KMS”), Rob Kimbel, Brad Smith, and Dustin Hughes (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff Sheil

803 F.Supp. 1287 (1992) Billy Glen HARWELL v. AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. No. 1:91-0107. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division. September 14, 1992. *1288 *1289 Stewart, Estes & Donnell, Nashville, Tenn., Thomas J. Elmlinger, Brentwood, Tenn., for plaintiff.

GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-appellants brought this action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., against defendant-appellee American Medical Response, Inc. (“AMR”), alleging (1) in a qui tam claim, that AMR made false statements and submitted false claims to

*********** The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Gardner and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has shown good ground to reconsider the evidence. The Full Commission reverses the Deputy Commissioner's Award of Benefits and enters the following Opinion and Award. ******

548 S.E.2d 371 (2001) 248 Ga. App. 682 WILLIAMS et al. v. AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS et al. No. A00A1984. Court of Appeals of Georgia. March 7, 2001. Reconsideration Denied March 21, 2001. Certiorari Denied September 10, 2001. *373 Jerry B. Hatcher, Atlanta, for appellants.<

BARRON, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns a dispute between two businesses: Forte Automation Systems, Inc. (“Forte”), the defendant-appellant, and Full Spectrum Software, Inc. (“Full Spectrum”), the plaintiff-appellee. Their dispute requires us to resolve two distinct legal issues. The first turns on whether the evidence in the record suffices to sustain the jury’s verdict and

163 Cal.App.4th 550 (2008) PREMIER MEDICAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B195889. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four. May 30, 2008. *552 Riley & Reiner, Ira Reiner, Raymond L. Riley

KRUGER, J. *855 *1046 By statute, California's workers' compensation system provides an injured employee's "exclusive" remedy against an employer for compensable work-related injuries. ( Lab

919 So.2d 1186 (2005) Nicole KING, administrator of the estate of Christopher King, deceased v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., et al. 2030903. Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. April 15, 2005. Rehearing Denied July 15, 2005. *1188 Johnny B. Davis, Ozark, for appellant. Philip G. Piggott of Starnes &

39 Cal.Rptr.3d 43 (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 464 PREMIER MEDICAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. B179325. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four. February 6, 2006. *45 Lord, Bissel &

175 F.Supp.2d 450 (2001) AMERICAN PARA PROFESSIONAL SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. LABONE, INC., Defendant. No. 01-CV-6179 (DRH). United States District Court, E.D. New York. November 13, 2001. *451 *452 Carb, Luria, Cook & Kufeld LLP, New York City, by M. William Scherer, for plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WITH REGARD TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Document No. 18) NEIMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. Audrey P. Dyjak (“Plaintiff’) brought this age discrimination action in state court asserting claims against Baystate Health Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) pursuant to both MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 151 B (Count I) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.