Cases

The respondent determined deficiencies in income tax against the petitioner as follows: [[Image here]] The only question for determination is whether petitioner is entitled to deductions for the cost of various items of clothing and accessories worn by her in the course of her employment, and if so, the amount thereof. Some of the adjustments entering into respond

FILED 15-0547 7/24/2015 5:49:28 PM tex-6223072 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

MAYER, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment. Today the court jettisons more than two hundred years of jurisprudence and eviscerates the role of the jury preserved by the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; it marks a sea change in the course of patent law that is nothing short of bizarre. Sadly, this decision represents a secession from the mainstream of the law. It portends t

NIES, Circuit Judge, dissenting, with whom ARCHER, Chief Judge, joins Part IV, Sections C2-4, D, and E. I dissent. I concur in Judge Plager’s dissent on the issue of infringement to the extent of his eloquent statement of the problem. However, I conclude that the determination of infringement under the “Doctrine of Equivalents,” as articulated in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.,

536 F.Supp. 317 (1982) HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 54 and Frank Gerace, Plaintiffs, v. Martin DANZINGER, Acting Chairman, Donald Thomas, Commissioner, Madeline McWhinney, Commissioner, Carl Zeitz, Commissioner, Casino Control Commission and G. Michael Brown, Director, Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Gaming Enforcement and Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Gaming Enforceme

LUCAS, District Judge: The State of Arizona and the Arizona Coliseum and Exposition Center Board (“Coliseum Board”) appeal from a joint judgment awarding the plaintiff, Mills Music, Inc. (“Mills”), $75,000 in damages for willful copyright infringement and $25,000 in attorney’s fees. Appellants’ sole contention on appeal is that th

846 F.2d 678 26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 191 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Lenwood Lewis WHITE, Defendant-Appellee.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Terry Joe TUCKER, Defendant-Appellee.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.William Johnny MASON, Roger David Handley, David Lee Kelso,and Ray Winford Steele, Defendants-Appellees.UNITED STATES of A

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JUAN R. SÁNCHEZ, District Judge. Defendants Ryobi Techtronics and Sears Roebuck ask me to dismiss this case for lack of prosecution because Plaintiff Steven Carter and his attorney Michael Burke have failed to prosecute this case and comply with the Court’s instructions. Mr. Carter and Mr. Burke argue the case should not be dismissed because they have complied with the Cour

OPINION Dan Hallahan appeals from an opinion and order of the Jefferson Circuit Court that granted summary judgment to The Courier-Journal and dismissed Hallahan's complaint for employment related disability discrimination brought pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 344. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Hallahan became employed at The Courier-Journal in the sales department in May 1986 while attending college. In 1990,

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge: This appeal consists of six consolidated criminal cases, involving eight defendants, in which the United States (“the Government”) seeks the reversal of the district court’s suppression of evidence. The Government also appeals from the district court’s order dismissing the indictment against David Lee Kelso and from the district court’s granting Ricky Lynn Creek-more a judgment of acquittal after the jury had

486 F.Supp. 1273 (1980) DC COMICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. FILMATION ASSOCIATES, Defendant. No. 78 Civ. 5508 (LFM). United States District Court, S. D. New York. March 21, 1980. *1274 *1275 Shea & Gould by Jesse Climenko and Richard L. Spinogatti, New York City, Cooper, Epstein & Hurewitz

191 Cal.App.3d 1035 (1987) 237 Cal. Rptr. 14 ROSENFELD, MEYER & SUSMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PETER R. COHEN et al., Defendants and Appellants. Docket Nos. B001373, B014209, B023085. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five. May 8, 1987. *1041 COUNSEL O'Melve

Chief Justice RABNER, concurring. By order dated September 8, 2010, the Presiding Judge for Administration of the Appellate Division, the Honorable Edwin H. Stern, was temporarily assigned to the Supreme Court until further order. As a result, he participated in the resolution of this matter and authored the majority opinion. Article VI, Section II, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constituti

Levin, J. (dissenting). Tbe defendant bad a duty to keep its store premises reasonably safe for public *630use, and, if a condition caused by others made the premises unsafe, to correct that condition within a reasonable time after it learned or should have learned of the potential for harm. Hulett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1941), 299 Mich

BROTMAN, District Judge. New Jersey’s Casino Control Act, L.1977, c. 110, § 1 et seq., as amended by L.1978, c. 7, § 1 et seq., N.J.Stat.Ann. § 5:12-1 et seq. (West Supp.1981) (hereinafter the “Act”), establishes the conditions under which the nascent casino gambling industry in Atlantic City, New Jersey, is to be regulated. Section 93 of the Act, N.J.Stat.Ann. § 5:12-93 (West Supp.1981), prohibits

In this case the plaintiff, Corn Belt Theatre Corporation, appealed to the district court from the action of the Board of Review of the City of Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa, in confirming an assessment made by the local assessor *Page 356 upon a theater property owned by it in that city in 1941, and in disregarding the objections and the demand of the owner thereto that the Board of Review make a reduction from said assessed figure. Plaintiff pe

The state department of revenue after protest and oral hearing demanded, on September 16th, 1949, made final a use tax assessment under §§ 787-789, Tit. 51, Code of 1940, as amended, for the period January 1, 1946 to December 31, 1946, in the sum of $549.09, the tax, $86.47, interest from due date, total $635.56. From the final order of the department the taxpayer prosecuted an appeal to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, in Equity, under § 140, Tit. 51, Code of 1940, and in purs

Mr. Justice Black, dissenting. In this case the Court sets up a new constitutional formula for invalidation of state laws regulating local phases of interstate commerce. I believe the New York law is invulnerable to constitutional attack under constitutional rules which the majority of this Court have long accepted. The new formula subjects state regulations of local business activities to greater constitutional

GARRETT, Associate Judge. This is an appeal from the findings and recommendations of the United States Tariff Commission in a proceeding had by that tribunal under the provisions of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USCA § 1337).1 By the terms of the statute this court is limited to a consideration of “a question or quest