Cases

ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge. During the trial of this patent case, plaintiffs expert, Dr. Thomas Beebe, testified for the first time on cross-examination that he had followed an undocumented protocol for his Shore D testing that is entirely inconsistent with the procedures disclosed in his expert report. This caused defendant Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (“JJVC”)

(2008) JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. CIBA VISION CORPORATION, Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff. Nos. 3:05-cv-135-J-32TEM, 3:06-cv-301-J-32TEM. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. March 14, 2008. CORRECTED MARKMAN ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge. <

PER CURIAM. In these consolidated proceedings, Ey-eMed Vision Care and CompBenefits Company seek review of nonfinal administrative action of the Department of Management Services calling for the continuation of a contract award process notwithstanding the pendency of petitioners’ protests of the proposed award. We conclude that the agency’s order fails to satisfy the burden imposed by statute to justify overriding the otherw

BIRCH, Circuit Judge: In this interlocutory appeal, 1-800 CONTACTS, Inc. (“1-800”) argues that the district court erred when it issued a preliminary injunction forbidding 1-800 from making certain statements about the products and services of Johnson & Johnson Vision , Care, Inc. (“J&J”). The district court based its 'injunction on the conclusion that three of the adve

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. This case requires us to, once again, interpret and apply Maine’s Whistleblower Protection Act, Me.Rev.Stat. tit. 26, § 833. Appellant Torrey Harrison (“Harrison”), a social worker, wants to be able to tell a jury that appellee Granite Bay Care, Inc. (“Granite Bay”) illegally fired her in violation of that statute. Her theory is Granite' Bay was getting bac

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE BY PLAINTIFF ABBOTT POINT OF CARE, INC. SMITH, District Judge. This opinion addresses eight motions in limine filed by plaintiff, Abbott Point of Care, Inc., an entity that plaintiffs counsel refer to by the acronym “APOC” for reasons that are discussed in Part IV, infra, but one which this court prefers to reference by the si

Reversed and Remanded and Majority Opinion filed December 29, 2020. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-01108-CV AQUATIC CARE PROGRAMS, INC., Appellant V. KATHLEEN DENISE COOPER, Appellee On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: Thomas K. Lammert, Jr. (Lammert), a non-party to this action, appeals from the February 26, 2014 order which denied his motion to quash subpoena and for protective order. Aso before us is the motion of appellees Red Vision Systems, Inc. and Television Texas, LLC (Plaintiffs, collectively) to quash some issues raised in the appeal

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS A GUARDIAN ANGEL CHILD CARE § No. 08-20-00024-CV CENTER, INC., § Appeal from the Appellant, § 34th District Court v.

875 N.E.2d 1065 (2007) 226 Ill.2d 334 VISION POINT OF SALE, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Appellee, v. Ginger HAAS et al., Appellants. No. 103140. Supreme Court of Illinois. September 20, 2007. *1068 J. Timothy Eaton, Patricia S. Spratt, of Shefsky & Froelich Ltd., James M. Carlson, of Ungaretti &

Dr. [Richard] Kemp performed phacoemulsificationcataract extraction, left eye, with implantation of an intraocular lens.... The surgery was performed under retrobulbar anesthesia administered by Olga Futrell, CRNA. Of note, the initial block attempt produced inadequate akinesia and anesthesia, so a second retrobulbar block attempt was performed. This is significant because complications such as globe penetration and optic nerve injury are more comm

DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (this relates to Doc. ## 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21) Diane Finkle, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Plaintiff Joseph M. DiOrio, the Chapter 7 trustee (“Trustee”), seeks entry of a default judgment against Defendants Linda K. Davis Griffin (“Ms.Griffin”) and Shirley Davis (“Ms.Davis”) (collectively the “Def

268 F.Supp.2d 358 (2003) David GREENFIELD and The Photographers, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. TWIN VISION GRAPHICS, INC. a/k/a Twin Vision, Inc., Defendant. David Greenfield and The Photographers, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. The Matzel & Mumford Organization, Inc., Defendant. Civ. No. 98-2802(HAA). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. June 26, 2003.

Rulon, J.; Plaintiff Ray Hodge appeals from a directed verdict in a personal injury action. We affirm. Plaintiff requests this court to decide if plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to raise a jury question as to whether the negli*593gence of a phantom motorist was a causal factor in this personal injury action. The material fac

RULING ON SOUNDVIEWS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND TESTIMONY OF SONY’S RULE 30(b)(6) WITNESS MARGOLIS, United States Magistrate Judge. Familiarity is presumed with the factual and procedural history behind this antitrust and patent infringement action. See Sony Elec., Inc. v. Soundview Techs., Inc., 157 F.Supp.2d 172 (D.Conn.2001); Sony Elec., Inc. v. Soundview T

336 F.Supp.2d 950 (2004) AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BOYCOM CABLE VISION, INC., Defendant. No. 1:02 CV 00151 LMB. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division. September 3, 2004. *951 Robert W. Cockerham, Brown and James, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff. Scott A. Robbins, Kenne

2005 UT App 326 Aris Vision Institute, Inc., a California corporation dba Aris Vision, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Wasatch Property Management, Inc., a Utah corporation; JDJ Properties, a Utah corporation; David Skalka, an individual; Brian Skalka, an individual; and Dennis Peacock, an individual, Defendants and Appellants. Case No. 20040304-CA. Utah Court of Appeals. File

35 F.Supp.2d 797 (1998) SPECTRUM VISION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SPECTERA, INC., Defendant. No. 97-2459-JWL. United States District Court, D. Kansas. October 30, 1998. *798 *799 *800 Mark E. Brown, Litman, McMahon & Brown, Philip W. Bledsoe, Shughar

Affirmed in part and reversed in part by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge GREGORY and Judge VOORHEES joined. *385 OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge. In this ERISA case the district court concluded that the plan adminis

374 B.R. 36 (2007) 2007 BNH 031 In re ROBOTIC VISION SYSTEMS, INC., and Auto Image ID, Inc., Debtors. Steven M. Notinger, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Pasquale Costa, Frank DiPietro, Jay M. Haft, Jonathan Howe, Mark J. Lerner, Howard Stern, and Robert H. Walker, Defendants. Bankruptcy Nos. 04-14151-JMD, 04-14152-JMD, Adversary No. 06-1423-JMD. United States Bankruptcy Co