⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

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.

9 opinions for “PIECZENIK v. BAYER CORPORATION”

Supreme Court of the United States · 2012-10-09 · Published · cited 0× · 568 U.S. 959; 133 S. Ct. 438
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012-03-22 · Published · cited 0× · 474 F. App'x 766
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice the complaint filed by Dr. George Pieezenik, on the ground that he failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Dr. Pi-eezenik appeals that dismissal. He also appeals the dismissal of his charge of copyright infringement by the defendants’ quotation from his classroom lecture; he
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011-07-11 · Published · cited 0× · 421 F. App'x 971
ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of George Pieczen-ik’s unopposed motion to dismiss Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. et al. from this appeal, It Is Ordered That: The motion is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011-05-03 · Published · cited 0× · 419 F. App'x 995
ON MOTION PER CURIAM. ORDER The Defendants-Appellees move to dismiss George Pieczenik’s appeals. Pieczen-ik opposes. Pieczenik has appealed from orders denying his motion “in limine to expunge plaintiffs copyright lecture proffered by defendants’ counsel and to charge them with digital copyright infringement,” denying his motion for mediation, and his motion fo
District Court, District of Columbia · 2015-12-11 · Published · cited 0× · 148 F. Supp. 3d 44; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166114; 2015 WL 8664185
MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, Request for Attorney’s fees, and Request for Anti-Suit Injunction; Denying as Moot Plaintiff’s First and Second Requests for Payment of Damages Re Document Nos.: 4, 9, 11, 14 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge I. INTRODUC
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2020-04-08 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Federal Claims KUNTA REDD, Plaintiff, No. 19-cv-1167 v. Filed: April 8, 2020 THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ORDER Plaintiff pro se Kunta Redd brings this action against the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1495, seeking money
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2017-08-03 · Published · cited 19× · 133 Fed. Cl. 405; 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 922; 2017 WL 3301279
OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. Plaintiff, Richard J. Bobka,- brings suit to challenge his allegedly unjust conviction and imprisonment that resulted from criminal charges filed against him in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Mr. Bobka pleaded guilty to multiple felony counts in 2012 and was sentenced to 180-months (16 y
District Court, D. New Jersey · 2014-06-16 · Published · cited 0× · 27 F. Supp. 3d 557; 2014 WL 2710956; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81954
OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant’s motion to dismiss claims of patent infringement in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). [Docket Item 15.] Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ allegations are so overbroad they do not state a plausible claim of direct or i
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2016-05-26 · Published · cited 0× · 127 Fed. Cl. 115; 2016 U.S. Claims LEXIS 660; 2016 WL 3034436
Suit for alleged breach of contract; Wetlands Reserve Program; wetlands conservation easement setting out continuing obligations of plaintiffs and the government agency; plausible claim for breach. OPINION AND ORDER Charles F. Lettow, Judge In this breach of contract action, plaintiffs James and Nancy Telzrow (“the Telzrows”) all