Cases

FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF GENERAL ELECTRIC ROYAL FURGESON, Senior District Judge. *? Table of Contents I. Background............................................................586 II. Policy Underlying The Inequitable Conduct Doctrine........................588 <

720 F.Supp.2d 1061 (2010) MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc., Plaintiffs v. GENERAL Electric COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 5:10CV05087 JH. United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division. August 23, 2010. *1063 Filiberto Agusti, Kenneth Patrick Ewing, Steven J. Barber,

927 N.E.2d 179 (2010) SOUTH SIDE TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK OF PEORIA, as personal representative of the Estates of Christine Marie White, deceased, and John Michael White, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD, a Corporation, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., a Corporation, Honeywell International, Inc., a Corporation, Woodward Governor Company, a Corporation, and Air 1st Aviation Companies, a Corporation, Defen

923 F.Supp. 1453 (1996) Mary E. RICKERT, Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas J. Rickert, deceased, Plaintiff, v. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., a Japanese corporation; et al., Defendants. No. 95-CV-0072-B. United States District Court, D. Wyoming. April 12, 1996. *1454 Bruce A. Lampert, Richard F. Schaden, Denver,

SECOND DIVISION March 31, 2010 No. 1-09-0148 SOUTH SIDE TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK OF ) Appeal from the PEORIA, as personal representative of the Estates of ) Circuit Court of Christine Marie White, deceased, and John Michel ) Cook County White, deceased, )

KESSLER, J. ¶ 1. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America appeals from a judgment finding that it breached its duty to defend Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., HCH Miller Park Joint Venture and the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, as well as the amount of attorney fees and costs for which it was ordered to reimburse Federal Insurance Company, which had paid Mitsubishi's, HCH's and the Distri

163 F.Supp.2d 1268 (2001) ROTEC INDUSTRIES, INC. an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff, v. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, a Corporation organized under the laws of Japan; Tucker Associates, Inc., an Oregon Corporation; and Garry Tucker, an individual, Defendants. No. CIV. 00-1394-KI. United States District Court, D. Oregon. September 14, 2001. *1

JAMES L. ROBART, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Before the court are: (1) Defendant Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation America, Inc.'s ("MITAC America") motion to dismiss certain claims (MITACA MTD (Dkt. # 54)); and (2) Defendants Aerospace Testing Engineering & Certification, Inc. ("AeroTEC"), Michel Korwin-Szymanowski, Laurus Basson, and Cindy Dornéval's (collectively, "AeroTEC Defe

648 F.2d 642 1981-1 Trade Cases 64,112 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Mitsubishi ElectricCorporation, andMitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.,Defendants-Appellees.MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION, and Mitsubishi HeavyIndustries, Ltd., Defendants-Cross-Appellants,v.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee.

ORDER BUA, District Judge. The plaintiff, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI), a Japanese corporation, brings this action against the defendant, Geo. J. Meyer Manufacturing Division of “Automatic” Sprinkler Corporation of America (Meyer), an Ohio corporation, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Fed.R. Civ.P. Rule 65. Jurisdiction of the action is based upon

738 N.W.2d 87 (2007) 2007 WI App 185 SOUTHEAST WISCONSIN PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL PARK DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES AMERICA, INC., HCH Miller Park Joint Venture, Hunt Construction Group f/k/a Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., The Clark Construction Group, Inc. and Hunzinger Construction Company, Defendants-Respondents, Ove Arup & Partners California Limited and Federal Insurance Compan

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. 1. INTRODUCTION This suit arises out of the death of Daniel Wultz and the injuries of Yekutiel Wultz, suffered in a 2006 suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, Israel. Four members of the Wultz family brought suit against Bank of China (“BOC”), alleging acts of international terrorism under the Antiterrorism Act (“ATA”),

Slip Op. 20-15 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE UTTAM GALVA STEELS LIMITED, Plaintiff, Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge v. Court No. 19-00044 UNITED STATES, Defendant, CALIFORNIA STEEL INDUSTRIES INC., AND STEEL DYNAMICS, INC., Defendant-Intervenors.

62 F.Supp.2d 173 (1999) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. NIPPON PAPER INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., formerly Jujo Paper Co., Ltd., Defendant. Cr. No. 95-10388-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. July 16, 1999. *174 *175 *176 Alan M. Cohen, O'

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 57 OPINION Prologue Our original opinion in this matter was filed February 6, 2003. The California Supreme Court granted review on April 30, 2003. While the case was pending before that court, the United States Supreme Court handed down American Ins. Ass'n

130 Cal.Rptr.2d 734 (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 39 MITSUBISHI MATERIALS CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent; Frank H. Dillman et al., Real Parties in Interest. No. G030056. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three. February 6, 2003. As Modified March 7, 2003. Review

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 599 *599II. BACKGROUND.........................................................600 A. Undisputed Facts....................................................600

60 F.Supp.2d 660 (1999) Michael A. NEMIR, Plaintiff, v. MITSUBISHI MOTOR SALES OF AMERICA and Chrysler Corp., Defendants. No. 96-75380. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. July 30, 1999. *661 *662 George A. Hilborn, Eric A. Buikema, Hilborn & Hilborn, PC, Birmin

473 F.Supp.2d 1349 (2007) TOKYO KIKAI SEISAKUSHO, LTD., and: TKS (U.S.A.), Inc., Plaintiffs, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Goss International Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. Slip Op. 07-12. Court No. 06-00078. United States Court of International Trade. January 24, 2007.

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I > agree with the majority that if the district court’s remand determination was based on a lack of removal jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) likely precludes, us from *212reviewing the remand order itself.1 However, I respectfully disagree with the majority's dismissal for lack of juri