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 “Matthew John Decker”
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. Gulianpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION STARK, U.S. District Judge: Pending before the Court is Defendants David T. Gulian, John A. Roberts, Eric N. Rubino, Manuel A. Henriquez, Mark S. Denomme, and Roy Y. Liu’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.’s (“Stanley” or “Black & Decker” or “Plaintiff’) Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (D.I. 16)
Decker v. Fishpublic domain
126 F.Supp.2d 342 (2000) Wade DECKER, Plaintiff, v. Michael FISH, individually and in his capacity as a Colchester police officer; Matthew Hill, individually and in his capacity as a Colchester police officer; and the Town of Colchester, and as individuals, each of them, Defendants. No. 2:99-CV-238. United States District Court, D. Vermont. October 25, 2000.
SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.public domain
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1746 SD3, LLC; SAWSTOP LLC, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. BLACK & DECKER (U.S.) INC.; BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION; CHANG TYPE INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.; DELTA POWER EQUIPMENT CORP.; HITACHI KOKI CO., LTD.; HITACHI KOKI USA LTD.; MAKITA CORPORATION; MAKITA U.S.A., INC.; MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORP.; O
Decker v. Mitchell (In Re JTS Corp.)public domain
305 B.R. 529 (2003) In re JTS CORPORATION, Debtor. Suzanne L. Decker, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. David T. Mitchell, Jack Tramiel, Sirjong Lal "Jugi" Tandon, Cooley Godward, LLP, Matthew W. Sonsini, Andrei M. Manoliu and Anna B. Pope, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 98-59752-MM, Adversary No. 00-5423. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California. September 30, 2003.
Zabaleta v. Deckerpublic domain
John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge This case concerns certain alleged legal and constitutional errors that the petitioner, Jefferson Randolfo Flores Zabaleta, claims occurred during the hearings to determine whether he should be released on bond during his immigration removal proceedings. The petitioner moves for a writ of habeas corpus under
Decker v. Deckerpublic domain
192 S.W.3d 648 (2006) Debra Renae DECKER, Individually and as Sole Heir and/or Beneficiary under Last Will and Testament of Jimmy Ray Decker, Deceased, and/or Executor of the Estate of Jimmy Ray Decker, Deceased, Appellant, v. Leroy DECKER, Sr., Appellee. and Leroy Decker, Sr., Appellant v. Debra Renae Decker, Individually and as Sole Heir and/or Beneficiary under Last Will and Testament of Jimmy Ray Decker, Deceased and/or Executor o
Kyles v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co.public domain
PER CURIAM. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict rendered against it. Stephen Michael Kyles was electrocuted while using a hand-held drill manufactured by Black & Decker. Janet Kyles, the special adminis*621trator for the decedent’s estate, brought a wrongful death action against Black & Decker, alleging stri
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I agree with the majority that “Judge Decker’s misconduct unquestionably warrants the imposition of a serious sanction.” Majority op. at 307. I also agree with the increase of sanctions from the JQC’s recommended 90-day suspension without pay to a six-month suspension without pay. The increase in sanctions is appropriate given the seriousness of the multiple charges agai
Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, Ltd.public domain
534 F.Supp. 873 (1981) John P. DECKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MASSEY-FERGUSON, LIMITED, Albert A. Thornbrough, John E. Mitchell, John G. Staiger, A. Bruce Matthews, Colin W. Webster, Alex E. Barron, Maxwell C. G. Meighen, Trumbull Warren, Henry Borden, John D. Leitch, A. M. Runciman, J. Page R. Wadsworth, the Marquess of Abergavenny, the Duke of Wellington, and Clarkson, Gordon & Co., Defendants.
SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker Inc.public domain
ON REHEARING PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1746 SD3, LLC; SAWSTOP LLC, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. BLACK & DECKER (U.S.) INC.; BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION; CHANG TYPE INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.; DELTA POWER EQUIPMENT CORP.; HITACHI KOKI CO., LTD.; HITACHI KOKI USA LTD.; MAKITA CORPORATION; MAKITA U.
HUMPHREYS, Judge. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (“VMRC”) appeals the September 8, 2014 decision of the Gloucester County-Circuit Court (the “circuit court”). The circuit court reversed VMRC’s decision to revoke the licenses and fishing privileges of Darrell Insley (“Insley”) and Dennis Parker (“Parker”), and remanded the ca
720 F.Supp.2d 792 (2010) ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANDISING TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Robert E. HOUCHIN, Defendant. No. 4:09-CV-187-A. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division. April 1, 2010. *793 Daniel L. Bates, Geoffrey A. Mantooth, Decker Jones McMackin McClane Hall & Bates, Fort Worth, TX,
O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge. In a thirteen count indictment, defendants-appellants were charged with conspiracy to embezzle and with embezzling union funds, in violation of § 501(c), Title 29 U.S.C.A. (Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act). During the period involved, October 2, 1959, to October 21, 1960, defendant Stoy Decker was President and Chief Business Agent of Local
GILBERTSON, Justice (on reassignment). INTRODUCTION [¶ 1.] This case calls for a determination by this Court as to whether the underlying dispute between the parties is secular, and *359thus appropriate for us to adjudicate, or whether it is religious and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of South Dakota.
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC14-383 ____________ INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 13-25 RE: ANDREW J. DECKER, III. [March 2, 2017] CORRECTED OPINION PER CURIAM. This matter is before the Court for review of the determination of the Florida Judicial Qualifications
Decker v. Commonwealth, Department of Highwayspublic domain
DAVIS, Commissioner. T. C. Decker and Nora Decker appeal from a judgment in a condemnation proceeding in which they were awarded $3,600. They complain: (1) that the court erred *370in striking the testimony of a witness offered by them; (2) in admitting improper photographs into the evidence; (3) in permitting improper cross-examination of a witness presented in their
Flathead Joint Board of Control v. Statepublic domain
11/08/2017 DA 16-0516 Case Number: DA 16-0516 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2017 MT 277 FLATHEAD JOINT BOARD OF CONTROL and JERRY LASKODY, BOONE COLE, TIM ORR, TED HEIN, BRUCE WHITE, SHANE ORIEN, WAYNE BLEVIN
City of Willow Park, Texas v. E.S. & C.M., Inc.public domain
OPINION TERRIE LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice. In three issues, appellant City of Willow Park, Texas appeals the trial court’s order overruling its plea to the jurisdiction. 1 We affirm in part and reverse and render in part. 2
Saldano v. Statepublic domain
232 S.W.3d 77 (2007) Victor Hugo SALDANO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas. No. AP-72556. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. June 6, 2007. Rehearing Denied August 22, 2007. *82 John Tatum, Richardson, for Appellant. Katharine K. Decker, Asst. Crim. D.A., McKinney, Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, f
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLCpublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Cengage Learning, Inc. (“Cengage”), and Pearson Education, Inc. (“Pearson”) brought this suit against Book Dog Books, LLC (“BDB”) and Philip Smyres alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and other claims relating to defendants’ purported distribution of counterfeit textbooks.