Cases

FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE RICHARD WILKINSON, ) No. 40061-1-III

Opinion by Judge Mencer, This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County affirming *574the dismissal of the claim petition of Harold Richard Duna (Dunn) by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board). Dunn had been employed by Merck & Company, Inc. (Merck) as a chemical operator from Janu

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge. This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation’s (“Merck”) motion for *806a preliminary injunction. [Record No. 2] Merck asserts that Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway (the “AG” or “Kentucky AG”) violated its right to due process wh

555 S.E.2d 11 (2001) 251 Ga. App. 631 MERCK v. SAINT JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL OF ATLANTA, INC. et al. No. A01A1934. Court of Appeals of Georgia. September 21, 2001. *12 Barbara Merck, pro se. Goldner, Sommers, Scrudder & Bass, Susan V. Sommers, Atlanta, Matthew P. Lazarus, for appellees. MIKELL,

285 F.Supp.2d 389 (2003) JOHNSON & JOHNSON-MERCK CONSUMER PHARMACEUTICALS CO., Plaintiff, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant. No. 03 Civ.7042(JES). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 25, 2003. *390 Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY (Steven A. Zalesin, of counsel), for plain

OPINION, ORDER, AND AMENDED JUDGMENT JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J. Following a trial, a jury found defendants New York & Company, Inc. and New York & Company Stores, Inc. (collectively, “New York & Company”) liable for infringing the trademark of plaintiffs 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC (“4 Pillar”) and Reflex Performance Resources, Inc. (“Reflex”). The Court entered judgment awarding plaintiffs $5,593,011.8

ORDER RE: POSTTRIAL MOTIONS DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK, United States Magistrate Judge This matter is before the Court on the parties’ posttrial motions. Defendant Campbell Company (“Campbell”) moves for judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff Polara Engineering, Inc." (“Polara") moves for > a permanent injunction, a judgment of willfulness and an award of • treble damages, a finding of exceptional circ

SUMMARY ORDER ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P. (“SmithKline”) appeals from an order by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Batts, J.) denying its motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BACKYARD WORKS INC., § § No. 66, 2023 Defendant-Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court of § the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. S21C-02-003 THOMAS J. PAR

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 598 U. S. Part 2 Pages 771–815 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 1, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2351 Doc: 37 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 17 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-2351 JAMES BOYKIN, lead plaintiff per order dated on 2/17/2021; ADNAN SAEED; CHAN-HEE KOH Plaintiffs - Appellants v. K12, INC.; NATHANI

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 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. Detroit

21-637 Nunes v. Cable News Network, Inc. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2021 No. 21-637 DEVIN G. NUNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

JOHN A. ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *880This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Marc and Jill Czapla's Motion to Remand. (Doc. 21.) Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition (Doc. 28), and Plaintiffs replied (Doc. 31). Background Plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court of St.

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial. Summary Judgment Judge Susan J. Dlott, United States District Court This is a product liability case under Ohio law arising from Plaintiff Pamela Rheinfrank’s ingestion of the antiepileptic drug, , Depakote,1 during her pregnancy with her daughter, M.B

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellants Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana and Christine Fleckles, acting on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated investors (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Pfizer, Inc. and several of its directors and officers,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER A. JOE FISH, Senior United States District Judge Before the court is the motion of the plaintiffs, ADT LLC and ADT U.S. Holdings, Inc. (together “ADT”), for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons stated below, the plaintiffs’ motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background ADT prov

Re Dkt No. 13208 ALLOCATION TRIAL OPINION1 KEVIN GROSS, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.. .499 PROCEDURAL SUMMARY ...500 FACTS ...502 A. The Business Lines... 502 B. Research & Development.. .504

633 F.Supp.2d 1063 (2008) TRAFFICSCHOOL.COM, INC., a California Corporation; Drivers Ed Direct, LLC, a California limited liability company, Plaintiffs, v. EDRIVER, INC., Online Guru, INC., Find My Specialist, Inc., and Seriousnet, Inc., California corporations, Ravi K. Lahoti, an individual; Raj Lahoti, an individual; Does 1 through 10, Defendants. No. CV 06-7561 PA (CWx). United States District Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GERALD BRUCE LEE, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc.’s (“CACI PT”) Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Based on the Statute of Limitations.1 (Dkt. No. 161.) This case concerns the well-publicized Abu Ghraib prison ab