Cases

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment directing the sale of certain real property and declaring the rights of the parties to the proceeds of the sale, the defendant Bruce M. Sullivan appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated May 12, 1994, as granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to direct the sale of the property free of all creditor’s liens and denied that b

In a matrimonial action, defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (De Luca, J.), dated June 9, 1983, as denied those branches of his motion which sought to (1) vacate a previous order granting plaintiff exclusive possession of the marital premises, (2) vacate a judgment against defendant for $1,900 in arrears and (3) order a psychiatric examination of plaintiff, and granted that branch of plaintiff’s cross motio

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MALLINCKRODT LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ACTAVIS LLC, FKA ACTAVIS INC., ACTAVIS SOUTH ATLANTIC LLC, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2018-1054 ______________________ Appe

JUDGMENT Per Curiam This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

939 N.E.2d 352 (2010) 238 Ill.2d 391 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Italo SANDERS, Appellant. No. 109014. Supreme Court of Illinois. October 7, 2010. *354 Randolph N. Stone, Herschella G. Conyers, of chicago, Kiersten Fletcher, Greg Cheyne, S. Neil Anderson, Hewot Shankute, Sharon Yecies

Jointly Administered OPINION1 BY: KEVIN J. CAREY, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court is the objection of Hercules Offshore, Inc. and its debtor affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors”) to the proof of claim filed by Axon Pressure Products, Inc., Axon Energy Products AS And Axon EP, Inc. (collectively, “Axon”). For the following reasons, I will

ANDREWS, District Judge. This is a claim construction opinion. Plaintiffs Viiv Healthcare UK Ltd. and Viiv Healthcare Co. assert U.S. Patent No. 6,417,191 (“'191 Patent”) against Defen*381dants Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.1 The '191 Patent relates to therapeutic combinations of anti-HIV drug

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated September 22, 1989, which awarded the defendant wife the principal sum of $20,740 for arrears of temporary maintenance and child support. The plaintiffs notice of appeal from an order dated August 15, 1989, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]). Order

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered on or about April 27, 1993, which denied plaintiff’s motion for an accelerated judgment or, in the alternative, for judgment for arrears on a *450distributive award previously ordered pursuant to an order and judgment entered April 30, 1992, and for an order compelling defendant to deliver two trial exhibits, and partially grante

Stoll, Circuit Judge. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. appeals the district court's decision holding the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,808,737 ineligible under

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Appellants Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Barr Laboratories, Inc., and APP *1371 Pharmaceuticals, LLC appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that U.S. Patent 5,344,932 (the “'932 patent”) is not invalid for obviou

— In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), dated January 12, 1989, as granted that branch of the defendant wife’s motion which was for an order of protection, and, sua sponte, awarded her exclusive occupancy of the marital residence, pendente lite. Ordered that the order is re

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACTAVIS, INC. AND ACTAVIS SOUTH ATLANTIC, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. ______________________ 2013-1658 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered February 14, 1991, as granted those branches of the motion of the plaintiff wife which were for temporary child support in the amount of $2,000 per month, interim counsel fees in the amount of $3,000, and interim experts’ fees in the amount of $7,500.

Bridger v Fourth Ave. Capital Partners, L.P. (2019 NY Slip Op 05503) Bridger v Fourth Ave. Capital Partners, L.P. 2019 NY Slip Op 05503 Decided on July 9, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York

TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE *1045This matter was before the Court for a bench trial beginning on February 1, 2018 and concluding on February 2, 2018, on the issue of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the "'20

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from so much of an order and interlocutory judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), entered March 14, 1988, as credited the plaintiff with certain payments towards arrears of temporary maintenance and support, and denied the defendant’s request for interest on the arrears, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order and interlocutory judgme

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, (1), on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated November 4, 1988, as, upon her motion for pendente lite relief, awarded *772her only $50 per week for temporary maintenance and $50 per week for temporary child support, and denied her i

Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. v Spivack (2019 NY Slip Op 01751) Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. v Spivack 2019 NY Slip Op 01751 Decided on March 13, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Pub

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.), dated May 16, 1985, which, after a hearing conducted pursuant to a resettled judgment of divorce, adjudged arrears owing under a permanent maintenance award in the amount of $4,632.50 and directed the defendant husband to make full payment of said arrears to the Department of Social Services of the intervenor-defendant County of Rockland.<