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 “Stanton v. Northeast Credit Solutions, Inc.”
NO. 01-15-00267-CV FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS FOR THE 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 3/25/2015 12:01:47 PM AT HOUSTON CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
ACCEPTED 04-14-00829-cv 04-14-00829-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXA
ACCEPTED 12-11-00303-cv TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 3/13/2015 4:46:09 PM
12 F.Supp.2d 69 (1998) PERSEPTIVE BIOSYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PHARMACIA BIOTECH, INC., et al., Defendants. No. CIV. A. 93-12237-PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 28, 1998. *70 Robert H. Stier, Jr., Todd S. Holbrook, Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, Portland, ME, Paul S. Veidenheimer, Hutchins,
Sanders v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc.public domain
188 F.Supp.2d 1264 (2002) Linda SANDERS, Constance Adams and Cynthia Thirouin, on Their Own Behalf and as Representatives of William David Sanders Their Step Father and Husband of Linda Sanders Thru Next Friend & Personal Attorney, John W. DeCamp, on Their Own Behalf & on Behalf of All Other Columbine Victims Including, Parents, Teachers, Students Living, Injured & Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Activision, Inc.
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.public domain
449 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 99-2496(GK). United States Distri
CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. This is a patent infringement suit brought by Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) against barnesandnoble.com, inc., and bar-nesandnoble.com 11c (together, “BN”). Amazon moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit BN’s use of a feature of its web site called “Express Lane.” BN resist *1347
900 F.Supp. 1427 (1995) BANCAMERICA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION and ASARCO Incorporated, Plaintiffs, v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. and Mosher Steel Company, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 90-2325-GTV. United States District Court, D. Kansas. August 2, 1995. *1428 *1429 *1430
88 Md. App. 672 (1991) 596 A.2d 687 ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER, INC., ET AL. v. B. DIXON EVANDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. No. 1920, September Term, 1990. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. October 4, 1991. Benjamin R. Civiletti (Nell B. Strachan, Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Venable, Baetjer and Howard, William W. Cahill, Jr. and Weinberg and Green,
ACCEPTED 03-14-00706-CV 4055487 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
Matter of Bell Petroleum Services, Inc.public domain
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 91-8080 _____________________ IN THE MATTER OF: BELL PETROLEUM SERVICES, INC., Debtor. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Appellee,
549 F.Supp. 716 (1982) STUDIENGESELLSCHAFT KOHLE mbH, Plaintiff, v. DART INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 3952. United States District Court, D. Delaware. October 5, 1982. *717 *718 *719 *720
3 F.3d 889 62 USLW 2222, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,474 In the Matter of BELL PETROLEUM SERVICES, INC., Debtor.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Appellee,v.SEQUA CORPORATION and Chromalloy American Corp., Appellants.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.BELL PETROLEUM SERVICES, INC., Regal International, Inc. andJohn R. Leigh, Defendants,Sequa Corporation and Chromalloy Am
ACCEPTED 14-14-00345-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/27/2015 5:02:41 P
Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. Lubrizol Corporationpublic domain
NIES, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Contrary to conventional wisdom in the art, Exxon discovered that small amounts of copper in automobile motor oil acts as an antioxidant, and it developed a highly successful commercial product using that discovery. The record discloses that Lubrizol learned of the presence of copper in Exxon’s motor oil from Exxon’s U.K. patent application and used the disclosure to prepare a
582 F.2d 750 Brenda EVANS et al., Lillian Richardson, Mary Woods, WilburR. Carr, Sr., Clifton A. Lewis, Jeanne Q. Lewis, Board ofPublic Education of the City of Wilmington (InterveningPlaintiff), the Urban Coalition of Metropolitan Wilmington Incorporatedv.Madeline BUCHANAN et al., Robert H. McBride, Elise Grossman,Joseph J. Crowley, William E. Spence, Clyde Bishop andRichard H. Farmer, constituting all the members of th
Chemsol, LLC v. City of Sibleypublic domain
Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge I. INTRODUCTION This case is before me on a motion (Doc. No. 23) for summary judgment by defendant *1007City of Sibley, Iowa (Sibley). Plaintiffs ChemSol, LLC (ChemSol), and Iowa Drying & Processing, LLC (IDP), have filed a resistance (Doc. No. 30), and Sibley has
836 F.2d 1493 127 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2313 L. Lee BEARDSLY, Appellant,v.CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION CO., et al., Appellees.Francis E. AMIOT, Appellant,v.CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION CO., et al., Appellees.John E. REECE, et al., Appellants,v.CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION CO., et al., Appellees.Jack L. CHAMBERS, et al., Appellants,v.CHICAGO A
Shami v. National Enterprise Systemspublic domain
*355MEMORANDUM & ORDER ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, District Judge. Plaintiff Solomon E. Shami (“plaintiff’) brings this putative class action against defendant National Enterprise Systems, Inc. (“defendant,” “NES”), alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2), 1692f(l). Before the Court is defendant’s mo
Leonard Cottrell v. Alcon Laboratoriespublic domain
ROTH, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Article III of our Constitution is a strict master, preserving constitutional strictures imposed on courts through the requirement that only true cases and controversies be heard. The Majority today, however, erodes these strictures by allowing the plaintiffs here to manufacture a purely speculative injury in. order to invoke our jurisdiction..