Cases

*646OPINION AND ORDER1 MEROW, Senior Judge. Plaintiff, Science Applications International Corp. (“SAIC”) filed this post-award protest contesting the United States Department of the Army Intelligence and Security Command’s (“INSCOM,” “Army” or “Agency”) decision not to award an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (“ID

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 23, 2023 No. 23-60037 Lyle W. Cayce ________

Case: 23-40076 Document: 140-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2024 United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Fifth Circuit FILED ____________ March

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 23, 2023 No. 23-60037 Lyle W. Cayce ________

FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 IN CLERK’S OFFICE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 ERIN L. LENNON

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. .United States District Judge Battle Sports Science, LLC (“Battle Sports”) and Active Brands Company, LLC (“Active Brands”), both Nebraska limited liability companies with their principal places of business in Nebraska, bring this action against Shock Doctor, Inc. (“Shock Doctor”), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

794 F.Supp.2d 329 (2011) Ricardo Javier REY-CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. FORENSIC SCIENCE INSTITUTE (ICF), et al., Defendants. Civil No. 10-1739(DRD). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. May 16, 2011. *331 Julio E. Gil-De-Lamadrid, Gil-De-Lamadrid, PSC, Bayamon, PR, for Plaintiff. Angel E. Rotger-Sabat, Maymi, Rivera &

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RUBEN CASTILLO, District Judge. Body Science, LLC (“Body Science” or “Plaintiff’), brings this patent infringement action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. against Boston Scientific Corporation (“Boston Scientific”), LifeWatch Services, Inc. (“LifeWatch”), Philips Electronics North America Corporation, doing business as Philips Healthcare (“Philips”), Pola

ACCEPTED 14-14-00345-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/27/2015 5:02:41 P

United States Tax Court 165 T.C. No. 8 COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 4823-21. Filed October 6, 2025. ————— P is a U.S. corporation engaged in the information

Office of the Director New Mexico Compilation 2023.04.13 Commission '00'06- 08:28:46 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2023-NMCA-020 Filing Date: December 15, 2022 No. A-

WINOKUR, J. This case concerns the boundaries of proper closing argument. Plaintiffs counsel crossed those boundaries repeatedly, flagrantly, and often in defiance of the trial court’s admonishments. The depth and pervasiveness of these improper arguments compel reversal of this case for new trial.1 I. Cynthia Robinson, as Personal Representative of the Estate

Case: 25-50367 Document: 69-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED February 10, 2026

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

OPINION OF THE COURT ALDISERT, Circuit Judge. This appeal by an employee from a district court order compelling arbitration of her employment discrimination claims requires us to determine whether the entire arbitration agreement between her and her employer was vitiated when the court voided the agreement’s attorney’s fees and arbitration costs provisio

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................... 1284 A. Procedural Background................................ 1284 B. Factual Backgr

747 F.Supp.2d 522 (2010) Frank REYNOLDS v. The UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. Civil Action No. 06-1237. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. October 25, 2010. *524 Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Richard J. Heleniak, Messa & Associates PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Frank Reynolds. James P. Golden, Cameron Etezady, Hamburg a

188 S.W.3d 252 (2006) Ernest REYNOLDS, III, Appellant, v. Michael MURPHY a/k/a and f/k/a John Michael Murphy and Phillips Investment Resources, L.L.C., Appellees. No. 2-03-294-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. February 9, 2006. *256 Fielding, Parker & Beck, L.L.P., David Fielding, Nathan B. Schattman, Taylor, Olson,

WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the questions whether due process forbids giving a jury’s findings of negligence and strict liability in a class action against cigarette manufacturers preclusive effect in a later individual suit by a class member and, if not, whether federal law preempts the jury’s findings. Florida smokers and their survivors filed a class action against several tobacco companies, and aft