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 “Magnus, Inc. v. Diamond State Insurance Company”
Magnus, Inc. v. Diamond State Insurancepublic domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KATHRYN H. VRATIL, District Judge. Magnus, Inc. brings suit against Diamond State Insurance Company to recover under insurance policies which Diamond issued to Precision Designed Products (“PDP”). Specifically, Magnus asserts that Diamond breached its agreement to insure and defend PDP with regard to claims which Magnus brought against PDP in Montgomery County, Kansas, ' Case
Siegel v. Albertus Magnus High Schoolpublic domain
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated August 4, 2015, as granted those branches of the respective motions of the defendants third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the defendants third-party pla
III. DISCUSSION Caterpillar's arguments fall generally into two categories. The first is comprised of fundamentally legal arguments-namely, that Haber's nuisance, illegal dumping and TSCA claims fail as a matter of law and would fail as a matter of law regardless of the detail Haber may add to its complaint. Mosey's argument, applicable just to Haber's nuisance claim, also falls into this f
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JULIE A. ROBINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Great Plains Ventures, Incorporated (“GPV”) brings this action to recover *973under an insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”). This matter comes before the Court on GFV’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 104) on th
Eggs v. Rembrandt Enters., Inc.public domain
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge, United States District Court Apparently egged on by its lack of success in *967Rexing Quality Eggs v. Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. (Rexing I ), 360 F. Supp. 3d 817 (S.D. In
Ace American Insurance v. Dish Network, LLCpublic domain
ORDER CONCERNING CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Blackburn, Judge. This matter is before me on the following: (1) ACE American Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum [#97]1 filed June 15, 2015; and (2) the Motion of DISH Network L.L.C. for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law [#102] filed June 15, 2015. The parties fil
Concaten, Inc. v. AmeriTrak Fleet Solutions, LLCpublic domain
ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on the motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) [Docket No. 32] filed by defendant AmeriTrak Fleet Solutions, LLC (“AmeriTrak”). The basis of AmeriTrak’s motion is that the patents-in-suit, which involve relaying weather and road data to and from snow plows, are drawn to ineligible subject m
Gedalia v. Whole Foods Market Services, Inc.public domain
OPINION AND ORDER MELINDA HARMON, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Uri Gedalia (“Gedalia”) and Kira Lewis’s (“Lewis”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Certify (Doc. 17) and Defendants Whole Foods Market Services, Inc., et al.’s (“Whole Foods”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs’ response (Doc. 36) and Whole Foods’s reply (Doc.
Heckler & Koch, Inc. v. German Sport Guns GmbHpublic domain
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on three motions: (1) Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ affirmative defenses to counterclaims [Docket No. 282], filed on March 17, 2014; (2) Plaintiffs’ motion for summary *874judgment [Docket No. 329], filed on July 17, 2014; and (3) Defen
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculturepublic domain
ORDER JAMES C. DEVER III, Chief United States District Judge On August 26, 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (“PETA” or “plaintiff’) filed a complaint against the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and Tom Vilsack, Secretary of the USDA, in his official capacity (collectively, “defendants”) [D.E. I].1 PETA alleges that the USDA license-renew
Voelker v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.public domain
MANION, Circuit Judge. Daniel J. Voelker appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his claims for breach of written warranty and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (“Magnuson-Moss Act” or ‘.‘the Act”) 15 U.S.C. § 2301.8 et seq., and for various violations of state law. We reverse as to Voelker’s claim fo
Parfi Holding AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc.public domain
794 A.2d 1211 (2001) PARFI HOLDING AB, Gunnar Gillberg, Plenteous Corp. and Grandsen, Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. MIRROR IMAGE INTERNET, INC., Xcelera.Com, Inc., Alexander M. Vik, Gustav Vik and Hans Magnus Fajerson, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 18507. Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle County. Submitted: December 6, 2001. Decided: December 20, 2001.
PRESIDING JUSTICE MANNING delivered the opinion of the court: Citizens National Bank of Decatur (Citizens) filed a third-party claim for contribution against Swiss Air Transport Company (Swiss Air) pursuant to the Illinois Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act (Contribution Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 70, par. 302(a)). The circuit court of Cook County granted Swiss Air
773 F.Supp. 1117 (1991) SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. No. 91 C 789. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. August 26, 1991. *1118 Bruce C. Spitzer, Gorham, Metge, Bowman & Hourigan, Thomas L. Hogan, Hogan & Hogan, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Edward
Lektro-Vend Corporation v. The Vendo Companypublic domain
660 F.2d 255 1981-2 Trade Cases 64,258 LEKTRO-VEND CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Ann Stoner,As Administrator of the Estate of Harry B. Stoner,Deceased, and Stoner Investments, Inc.,a Delaware corporation,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.The VENDO COMPANY, a Missouri Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 80-2120. United States Court of Appeals,
ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd.public domain
PIERCE, Circuit Judge: I. BACKGROUND A. Events Leading to Liability Trial On February 10, 1971, Bright Tunes Music Corporation (Bright Tunes), then copyright holder of the song “He’s So Fine,” composed by Ronald Mack, brought this copyright infringement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against former member of the musical group “T
791 F.2d 1356 55 USLW 2037, 1986-1 Trade Cases 67,140 LOS ANGELES MEMORIAL COLISEUM COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, an unincorporated association,Baltimore Football Club, Inc. (Baltimore Colts), BuffaloBills, Inc., Chargers Football Co. (San Diego Chargers),Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc., Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.,Cleveland Browns, Inc., Dallas Cowboys Football Club
722 F.2d 988 221 U.S.P.Q. 490, 1983 Copr.L.Dec. P 25,603 ABKCO MUSIC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,v.HARRISONGS MUSIC, LTD., Harrisongs Music, Inc., GeorgeHarrison, Apple Records, Inc., Broadcast Music,Inc., and Hansen Publications, Inc.,Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,v.ABKCO INDUSTRIES, INC. and Allen Klein, Additional Partieswith Respect to Counterclaims-Appellants-Cr
Adams. v. Jonespublic domain
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * JOHN C. PORFILIO, Circuit Judge. Oler Adams, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s *779 order granting summary judgment on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleg
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Robert D. Berger, United States Bankruptcy Judge Plaintiff and Defendant moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs complaint .seeking a finding that its claim against Defendant for fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2) and 1328.