Cases

BLODGETT, District Judge. This patent contains eleven distinct claims, but the controversy in this case is confined to the first two claims. The feature of the machine covered by the two claims in controversy, is the device for rocking or rolling the sickle bar — or “finger beam,” as it is called by the patentee. This finger beam is so arranged that it may be rocked or tipped upward or downward so as to incline

Justice Goldberg, for the Court. This case came before the Supreme Court on March 6, 2018, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The defendants, Craig J. DiPetrillo and Rebecca M. DiPetrillo (defendants), appeal from a Superior Court judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the plai

DECISION This matter comes before this Court for decision following a non-jury trial held on January 20, 2009, on the action instituted by Joseph and Anita McGarry ("the McGarrys") against Dr. Alfred Coletti ("Dr. Coletti") for trespass, private nuisance, 1 and quiet title. Dr. Coletti counterclaimed ownership of the disputed land via adverse possession pursuant to G.L. 1956

OPINION Chief Justice SUTTELL, for the Court. This Court issued a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the Superior Court affirming a decision by the Town of Scituate Zoning Board of Review (zoning board). The petitioner, Steven Iadevaia, had applied to the Scituate Building Official for a building permit, which was denied due

I INTRODUCTION This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Buddy Cage, against the defendant, Litchfield Mutual Insurance Company, in which the plaintiff claims damages based on breach of contract with respect to an insurance policy issued by the defendant to the Mystic Valley Hunt Club (Hunt Club), negligence, direct suit against an insurer pursuant to General Statutes § 3

OPINION This case comes to us on a petition for certiorari by Mill Realty Associates seeking our review of a decision by the Zoning Board of Review for the Town of Coventry. The board denied Mill Realty Associates' request for an "exception" seeking to be relieved of having to comply with established standards prescribed for suitably improved road construction in the town of Coventry pursuant to Section 15-51(c) of the Coventry Code of Ordinances.

783 A.2d 404 (2001) Peter A. CARNEVALE et al. v. Joan L. DUPEE. No. 99-499-Appeal. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. November 2, 2001. *405 Present WILLIAMS, C.J., LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ. S. Paul Ryan, James P. Marusak, Providence, for Plaintiff. Donato A. D'Andrea, Newport, for Defendant.

69 F.Supp.2d 1143 (1999) Sharon K. BATES, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. C 97-3105-MWB. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division. September 17, 1999. Mark S. Soldat, Algona, IA, for Sharon K. Bates, plaintiff. *1144 Donna K. Webb, Assistant United States Att

721 A.2d 887 (1998) MILL REALTY ASSOCIATES, a Rhode Island General Partnership v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF COVENTRY. No. 97-95-M.P. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. December 22, 1998. Bennett R. Gallo for Plaintiff. Patrick J. Sullivan, Coventry, Paul K. Sprague, Warwick, for Defendant. Present: WEISBERGER, C.J., and LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GILBERT, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the motion for class certification brought by plaintiffs Greg Cima, Diana Peek, Linda McMahon, Mike Beard, Sharon Beard, John Beckwith, Jr, and Stephen Jellen (Doc. 152).1 For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED. I. Introduction As

MEMORANDUM OPINION KISER, Senior District Judge. Before me now is a motion for class certification by Joseph Talbott (“Talbott” or the “plaintiff”). Both parties fully briefed the issues and were heard in oral argument, ripening this motion for disposition. For the reasons set forth herein, the plaintiffs motion is GRANTED in that a conditional class certification is ordered.

681 A.2d 892 (1996) Quentin ANTHONY v. Donald SEARLE. No. 92-572-Appeal. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. August 1, 1996. *893 MaryJo Carr, Newport, for Plaintiff. *894 Steve Conti, Providence, for Defendant. OPINION BOURCIER, Justice. This case comes here o

*829OPINION FLANDERS, Justice. Can the state government involuntarily divest owners of private property other than by eminent domain or by condemnation? Yes, we hold, because, like private parties, the government itself can acquire an easement by prescription or title by adverse possession over property that was otherwise privately owned during the pe

1 Paul Filippi, Sr. is a named party in Plaintiff's original and Amended Complaint; however, he is not identified in the caption of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. 2 By stipulation of the parties in February of 2008, Marion Filippi was substituted as a defendant with her sons, Paul C. Filippi, Steven C. Filippi and Blake A. Filippi. <

35 F.Supp.2d 650 (1998) FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. The STROH BREWERY COMPANY, Defendant. No. 1:95-CV-0287. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. December 22, 1998. *651 *652 David C. Campbell, James M. Hinshaw, Bingham Summers Welsh and Spilman, Indiana

OPINION GRAHAM, District Judge. This is a diversity action for declaratory judgment brought by an insurer, North-land Insurance Company (“Northland”), against its insured, Cailu Insurance Corporation (“Cailu”); Donald G. Sare, Jr., Kelly L. Sare and Tyrone Johnson, who are individuals associated with Cailu; and Stewart Title Guarantee Company (“Stewart”).

865 F.Supp. 26 (1994) Lisa M. CAMPBELL a/k/a Lisa M. Staff, Plaintiff, v. MACHIAS SAVINGS BANK, Defendant. Civ. No. 93-0282-B. United States District Court, D. Maine. October 7, 1994. *27 *28 *29 Ralph A. Dyer, Portland, ME, for plaintiff. Bernard J.

887 F.2d 1382 58 USLW 2315, 10 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1361 The AMERICAN COLEMAN COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.INTRAWEST BANK OF SOUTHGLENN, N.A., a national bankingassociation, and United Bank of Southglenn, N.A.,a national banking association,Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 88-1077 and 88-1220. United States Court of Appeals,Tent

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. In this diversity case, the American Coleman Company (American Coleman), plaintiff bel

456 A.2d 1179 (1983) Robert P. LEE et ux. v. William F. RAYMOND et ux. No. 80-324-Appeal. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. February 25, 1983. Harold B. Soloveitzik, Westerly, for plaintiffs. F. Albert Starr, Cranston, for defendants. OPINION KELLEHER, Justice. Spirited cocktail parties, cordial dinners, and spontaneous card games