Cases

SMrrH, J. The plaintiff, KCI Management Corporation (“KCI”), brings this motion for summary judgment on count II of its first amended complaint. That count seeks an order invalidating part of Article 29 of the Boston Zoning Code (“Code”). For the following reasons, plaintiffs motion is granted, and Article 29, Section 29-6 of the Code is declared invalid in its entirety. FACTS The followin

45 F.Supp.2d 469 (1999) LAUREL CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Laurel Savings Bank, Plaintiffs, v. BT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Laurel Bank, Defendant. No. Civ.A. 97-311J. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. April 15, 1999. *470 *471 *472

Amdahl Corporation (Amdahl), a disappointed bidder for a contract for the procurement of a mainframe computer, challenges the award of that contract by the Commonwealth2 to National Advanced Systems Corporation *992(NAS). Prior to trial, a judge of the Superior Court enjoined payment to NAS pending adjudication of Amdahl’s claims. On appeal, Amdahl claims that (1) the

Smith, J. A Superior Court judge dissolved preliminary injunctions by virtue of which the Bank of New England, N.A. (BNE) had held equitable liens on Harold Brown’s ownership interests in certain limited partnerships. BNE filed a notice of appeal in the Superior Court under the second paragraph of G. L. c. 231, § 118, and also filed a petition for review in the single justice session of this court under the first paragraph of G.

381 Mass. 1 (1980) 407 N.E.2d 319 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION vs. EDEL-BROWN TOOL & DIE CO., INC. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex. March 5, 1980. June 25, 1980. Present: HENNESSEY, C.J., QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, KAPLAN, & WILKINS, JJ. George O. Gregson (Patricia A. Donoghue with him) for the defendant.

225 F.3d 379 (3rd Cir. 2000) TITO POLLICE; VIOLET POLLICE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; LINDA MANSFIELD, APPELLANTS IN NO. 99-3856V.NATIONAL TAX FUNDING, L.P.; CAPITAL ASSET RESEARCH CORPORATION, LTD.TITO POLLICE; VIOLET POLLICE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; LINDA MANSFIELD,V.NATIONAL TAX FUNDING, L.P.; CAPITAL ASSET RESEARCH CORPORATION, LTD.APPELLANTS IN NO. 9

IRVING HILL, Senior District Judge: In the spring of 1979, Defendant St. Re-gis Paper Company (“St. Regis”) urgently needed an IBM 3033 computer. That model was in great demand and in very short supply. IBM’s factory had many backord-ers and was allocating future production by a lottery which established an estimated delivery date

OPINION OF THE COURT JORDAN, Circuit Judge This appeal arises from a putative class action in which Hartig Drug Company Inc. (“Hartig”) filed a complaint against Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Senju”), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Kyorin”), and Allergan Inc. (“Allergan”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging antitrust violations involving medicated

Gelinas, J. We consider in this case whether a claim for damages under G. L. c. 93A, brought in a Massachusetts court, is precluded by a choice of law provision (New York law as the choice) in an unsigned contract. We further consider whether jury misconduct in this case requires a new trial, whether the plaintiff was in breach of the contract, thereby excusing the defendant’s breach, and, finally, whether the evidence of damage

USCA1 Opinion [Not For Publication] United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit For the First Circuit ____________________ No. 96-1698

781 F.Supp. 821 (1992) Charles W. ROY, Plaintiff, v. FIRST EASTERN BANK, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, v. Austin C. EATON, Jr., Edward S. Keating, Frank H. Weller, Jr., Robert Trent Jones, Edmund F. Curtis, Jr., Third Party Defendants. Civ. A. No. 91-12088-Y. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 9, 1992. *

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BINYAM MOHAMED; ABOU ELKASSIM  BRITEL; AHMED AGIZA; MOHAMED FARAG AHMAD BASHMILAH; BISHER AL-RAWI, No. 08-15693 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.  D.C. No. 5:07-CV-02798-JW JEPPESEN DATAPLAN, INC., OPINION Defendant-Appellee, UNITED ST

20 Mass. App. Ct. 731 (1985) 482 N.E.2d 849 JOHN A. CATALDO vs. MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN & another.[1] Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk. June 7, 1985. September 10, 1985. Present: KASS, CUTTER, & FINE, JJ. Daniel L. Goldberg for the defendants. Douglas G. Moxham (Kenneth R. Berman & Ju

CAVANAUGH, Judge: Confederation Life Insurance Company (“Confederation Life”), a judgment creditor, purchased real property belonging to Morris-ville Properties, L.P. (“Morrisville”), at an execution sale. Confederation Life filed a petition to fix the property’s fair market value for determining its right to a deficiency judgment. Morrisville and Site Development, Inc. (“SDI”) filed a cross-petition to have the judgment m

106 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 232 (1987) 525 A.2d 1258 William R. Novak, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Insurance Department, Respondent. No. 858 C.D. 1986. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued April 21, 1987. May 20, 1987. *233 Argued April 21, 1987, before Judges CRAIG and

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BINYAM MOHAMED; ABOU ELKASSIM  BRITEL; AHMED AGIZA; MOHAMED FARAG AHMAD BASHMILAH; BISHER AL-RAWI, No. 08-15693 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.  D.C. No. 5:07-CV-02798-JW JEPPESEN DATAPLAN, INC., OPINION Defendant-Appellee, UNITED ST

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1221 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1222 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

Herd, J.: This is a breach of contract action in which the trial *132court relieved appellee of liability for breach under the doctrine of impossibility of performance. Sunflower Electric appeals. Appellant, Sunflower Electric Cooperative, Inc., a member of the R.E.A. family, is a public utility in the business of generating electricity for wholesale to

225 F.Supp. 762 (1960) PREFORMED LINE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. The FANNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 33196. United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D. January 6, 1960. Supplemental Findings and Conclusions May 17, 1962. *763 *764

Crosby, J. This is a suit in equity brought by a creditor of The Wire Hardware Company, a Massachusetts corporation, to collect from the stockholders personally a judgment against the corporation. During the trial, the bill was amended so as to include allegations of employment of the plaintiff by the individual defendants, as well as by the corporation itself. The defendants Stuart G. Shepard and Perry M. Shepard filed a cross bi