Cases

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiffs

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detr

7/13/2022 10:29:37 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: old_20-1530.pdf 20-1530.pdf versus 89 pages (424 KB) 89 pages (

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detr

143 F.Supp.2d 1044 (2001) Barbara A. MEYERS, Plaintiff, v. BAYER AG, Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Rugby Group, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. Defendants. No. 00-C-1582. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. May 18, 2001. *1045 John C. Cabaniss, Law Office of John C. Cabaniss,

Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to the Illinois Official Reports accuracy and integrity of this

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD. WALD, Circuit Judge: District of Columbia residents Clyde C. Freeman and Nancy F. Freeman brought suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to prohibit the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC” or “Corporation”), as receiver for Madison National Bank (“Madison”), from foreclosing on their

214 F.Supp.2d 581 (2002) SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP., d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Plaintiff, v. EXCEL PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant. No. 2:02-CV-51. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. August 2, 2002. *582 Kristan B. Burch, Stephen E. Noona, Kaufman & Canoles, PC, Norfolk, VA, Gregory S. Lewis, Morgan, Le

ACCEPTED 12-15-00219-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 11/19/2015 8:06:13 PM

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: This appeal calls into question the constitutionality of the St. Mary Parish, Louisiana worker registration ordinance. In the proceedings below, the district court upheld the ordinance and refused to enjoin the registration system the ordinance established. 466 F.Supp. 1200 (W.D.La.1979). A panel of this cou

341 F.Supp.2d 1057 (2004) State of WISCONSIN, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, AMGEN, INC., Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, Astrazeneca, LP, Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Aventis Behring, LLC., Baxter International, Inc., Bayer Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Dey, Inc., Fujisawa Healthcare, Inc., Gensia Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Glaxosmithkline, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Pharm

PRESENT: All the Justices ALAN M. GRAYSON, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 191413 JUSTICE D. ARTHUR KELSEY JUNE 24, 2021 WESTWOOD BUILDINGS L.P. VICTOR KUBLI, ET AL. v. Record No. 191414 WESTWOOD BUILDINGS L.P. CARLA G. COLEMAN v. Record No. 191475 WESTWOOD BUILDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1

PETER J. MESSITTE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. Procedural Background In a previous Opinion, the Court held that the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland have standing to challenge, in his official capacity, President Donald J. Trump based on his alleged violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.1 The Court found that

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J. ¶ 1. We review a pub*364lished court of appeals decision1 involving a dispute over the amount of money due to a shareholder for his shares in Sideline Software, Inc. (Sideline), a company that serves the fantasy football league market with an online league-management program. Because we agree that the balancing of the equ

416 B.R. 483 (2009) In re FRANKLIN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Debtor. Roger Drake, Randy Drake, Wilson Drake, Plaintiffs, v. Franklin Equipment Company, Carolyn L. Camardo, Chapter 7 Trustee, Defendants. No. 08-74473-SCS. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. September 14, 2009. *488 Daniel F. Blanks, Dougl

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1776 KEVIN CARROZZA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. d/b/a CVS PHARMACY, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. Dist

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON OSCAR MENDOZA, individually and as class representative, DIVISION ONE Appellant, No. 77948-6-I v. PUBLISHED OPINION EXPERT JANITORIAL SERVICES, L LC, Defendant, FRED MEYER STORES, INC., Respondent. FILED: October 28, 2019 DWYER, J. — A party

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1707 SHARON BAUER; RICHARD JURGENA, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MARC ELRICH, in his official capacity as Montgomery County Executive; RAYMOND L. CROWEL, in his official capacity as Director of Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Serv

MAYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. There can be no infringement of U.S. Reissue Patent No. 37,314 (the “'314 patent”) because that patent is invalid for improper reissue. Reissue is available under 35 U.S.C. § 251 to rectify an “error” resulting from inadvertence, accident, or mistake. No such error was present in U.S. Patent No. 5,260,440 (the “ '440 patent”), so there is no basis upon wh

The jury found that, as a consequence of the merger and JELD-WEN's conduct in 2014 and thereafter, competition was substantially lessened in the doorskin market and that, as a result, Steves sustained injuries of the type that the antitrust laws were designed to prevent. Thereupon, the jury awarded Steves $58,632,454.00 in antitrust damages which, when trebled as required by statute, amounts to antitrust damages in the amount of $175,897,362.00. The jury al