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 “Prescott v. Mars, Inc.”
Prescott v. Lighthouse for Broken Wings, Incpublic domain
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ROBERT H. ROBINSON, JR. Sussex County Courthouse JUDGE 1 The Circle, Suite 2 Georgetown, DE 19947 Telephone: (302) 856-526
Prescott-Harris v. McHughpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NIKITA S. PRESCOTT-HARRIS, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 15-1716 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 22 :
HCTEC Partners, LLC v. James Prescott Crawfordpublic domain
02/24/2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2021 Session HCTEC PARTNERS, LLC v. JAMES PRESCOTT CRAWFORD ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County No. 48722B Michael Binkley, Judge _________________________
Prescott v. Little Six, Inc.public domain
284 F.Supp.2d 1224 (2003) Leonard PRESCOTT, F. William Johnson, and Peter Riverso, Plaintiffs, v. LITTLE SIX, INC., in its capacity as plan administrator for the Little Six, Inc. Executive 457 Plan, the Little Six, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Plan, the Little Six, Inc. Life Insurance Plan, the Little Six, Inc. Separation Pay Plan and the Little Six, Inc. Retention Plan; the Little Six, Inc. Executive *1225 45
Prescott v. Rady Children's Hospital-San Diegopublic domain
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN, PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS .AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY Barry Téd Moskowitz, Chief Judge Before the Court are Defendant Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego’s (“RCHSD”) motion to dismiss and motion to stay. (ECF. No. 9, 15.) The Court discusses each below. I. BACKGROUND
Prescott v. Prudential Insurancepublic domain
729 F.Supp.2d 357 (2010) Michelle PRESCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Civil No. 09-322-P-H. United States District Court, D. Maine. July 27, 2010. *359 Nicholas Bull, Edward S. MacColl, Thompson, Bull, Furey, Bass & MacColl, LLC, P.A., Portland, ME, Timothy B. Fleming, Wiggins, Childs, Qui
Bookwalter v. Prescottpublic domain
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 264 {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a summary judgment issued by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas to appellees Vinings Industries, Inc., n.k.a. Kemira Chemicals, Inc. ("Kemira") and Great Lakes Recovery ("Great Lakes") in a dispute over vicarious liability for the deaths and injuries resulting
Jacobs v. Akademos, Inc.public domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRIAN JACOBS, ALAN JACOBS, THE ) BERNARD B. JACOBS AND SARA JACOBS ) FAMILY TRUST, JEAN-LOUIS VELAISE, ) DALE KUTNICK, TOREN KUTNICK, ) EDWARD B. ROBERTS, JOHN DENNIS, ) SHLOMO BAKHASH, and JOAN RUBIN, ) ) Plaintiffs, )
BioPoint, Inc. v. Dickhautpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 23-1575 BIOPOINT, INC., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ANDREW DICKHAUT; CATAPULT STAFFING, LLC, d/b/a Catapult Solutions Group, Defendants, Appellants, LEAH ATTIS, Defendant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C
IA Pizza, Inc. v. Sherwoodpublic domain
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 22-1706 Filed September 27, 2023 IA PIZZA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROBERT D. SHERWOOD, Defendant-Appellant. SHERWOOD HOLDINGS, L.L.C. Intervenor-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Michael Jacobsen, Judge. Sherwood Holdings, L.L.C. and Robert
Prescott v. United Statespublic domain
FARRIS, Circuit Judge: The question certified for this interlocutory appeal is whether an agreement between the Atomic Energy Commission and the Nevada Industrial Commission is a valid device for providing workers’ compensation coverage for radiation-related injuries and diseases for the employees of Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company. The district court held that the agreement was not a valid device because it fa
Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCpublic domain
Case: 23-1475 Document: 72 Page: 1 Filed: 03/04/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., Appellant LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., GOOGLE LLC, Appellees v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC, Cross-Appellant ______________________
Statewide Bonding, Inc. v. DHSpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 16, 2020 Decided November 10, 2020 No. 19-5178 STATEWIDE BONDING, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DHS, ET AL., APPELLEES Consolidated with 19-5342, 19-5364 Appeals from the United States District Cou
Danford Health Care, Inc. v. Wilsonpublic domain
[Cite as Danford Health Care, Inc. v. Wilson, 2021-Ohio-1737.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY DANFORD HEALTH CARE, INC. : : Plaintiff-Appellant : Appellate Case No. 28943 : v.
Prescott v. Martinpublic domain
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 242 This appeal consists of a consolidation of two cases, both naming Ruth Lowery Leonard, William Herschel Bray, and Robert Prescott as defendants. One suit was initiated by Joyce Carolyn Martin and the other by her husband, William E. Martin. The plaintiffs obtained judgments in the amounts of $50,000 and $3,5
David Simpkins v. John Maher Builders, Inc.public domain
05/04/2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 1, 2022 DAVID SIMPKINS ET AL. v. JOHN MAHER BUILDERS, INC. ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County No. 20-CV-50050M James G. Martin, III, Chancellor __________________________
Robillard v. Opal Labs, Inc.public domain
Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge *966United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation ("F & R") in this case on March 14, 2018. ECF 84. Judge Acosta recommended denying Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint. Plaintiff objects to a portion of the F & R. For the reasons that follow, the F & R is adopted in part
Knapp v. Art.com, Inc.public domain
William H. Orrick, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Plaintiff James Knapp brought this class action against Art.com alleging violations of consumer protection laws and unlawful business practices related to its advertising and pricing methods. Nine months later, the parties reached an agreement and sought to settle the case on a classwide basis. The agreement includes electronically distri
Izsak v. Draftkings, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Andrea R. Wood, United States District Judge. Plaintiff David Izsak brings this putative class action against Defendant DraftKings, Inc. (“DraftKings”), alleging that Draft-Kings sent him an unsolicited text message in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. Izsak also asserts a claim for common law conversion. Before the Cour
Array Techs., Inc. v. Mitchellpublic domain
JAMES A. PARKER, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Defendants Colin Mitchell (Mitchell), NEXTracker (NX), Marco Garcia (Garcia), Daniel S. Shugar (Shugar), Scott Graybeal (Graybeal), and Flextronics International USA, Inc. (Flextronics) ask the Court to dismiss Counts Three through Ten of Plaintiff Array Technologies, Inc.'s (ATI's) AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 52).1