Clear

4493 search results for query *


Summary: 389 F. Supp. Compare Bay State Harness Racing & Breeding Ass'n v. PPG Industries, 365 F. Supp. 1973) (3-judge court); Clement v. Four North State St. Corp., 360 F. Supp. 933 (D.N.H.1973) (3-judge court); and Idaho First Nat'l Bank v. Rogers, 41 U.S. L.W. 2492 (D.Idaho 1973) (state mechanic's lien and land attachment laws unconstitutional);[4]with Ruocco v. Brinker, 380 F. Supp. 432 (S.D.Fla.1974) *1326 (3-judge court); Central Security Nat'l Bank v. Royal Homes, Inc., 371 F. Supp. 476 (E.D.Mich.......read more.


Summary: 556 F. Supp. The Second Offender Information alleges that the defendant had previously been convicted in Connecticut Superior Court on April 8, 1997 for Sale of Narcotics and on April 30, 2003 for Criminal Violation of a Protective Order. § 53a-223(a) for Criminal Violation of a Protective Order does not qualify as a "crime of violence" as defined in U.S.S.G § 4B1.2(a). I. LEGAL STANDARD Section 4B1.1 provides that a defendant is a career offender if: (1) the defendant was at least eighteen year......read more.


Summary: 311 F. Supp. 1951); Abbott v. Barrentine Mfg. Co., 255 F. Supp. While the court has wide latitude in the assessment of damages, E. Ingraham Co. v. Germanow, 4 F.2d 1002 (2d Cir. 1925); Long Island R. R. v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen, 298 F. Supp. American Optical Co. v. Rayex Corp., 291 F. Supp. Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., supra; Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 243 F. Supp. See also American Safety Table Co. v. Schreiber, 415 F.2d 373 (2d Cir.1969), where lo......read more.


Summary: 312 F. Supp. 2d 260 (2004) ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. Arthur M. SEIGEL, M.D., Arthur M. Seigel, M.D., P.C., and Ellen Seigel, Defendants. In this action, Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company (collectively, "Allstate") have sued Dr. Arthur Seigel ("Seigel"), his medical practice, Arthur M. Seigel, P.C. ("Seigel P.C."), and his wife, Ellen Seigel, an employee and shareholder of Seigel P.C., for various alleged violation......read more.


Summary: 632 F. Supp. The following facts taken from Logan's amended complaint are relevant to C & D's and Woodward's motions to dismiss. On February 14, 2007, Logan informed SecTek that he was ready to return to work on February 17, 2007, but SecTek informed him that he could not do so until he attended the required 40-hour classroom training. Logan's amended complaint asserts that SecTek and C & D violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Connecticut Fair Employ......read more.


Summary: 493 F. Supp. 2d 302 (2007) Emma JONES, as Administratrix of the Estate of Malik Jones and as Guardian Ad Litem for Priya Jones, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF EAST HAVEN, et al., Defendants. Hugh F. Keefe, Nicole M. Fournier, Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, New Haven, CT, Lawrence C. Sgrignari, Hamden, CT, for Defendants. Corp., 136 F.3d 276, 289 (2d Cir.1998); Davis v. Rodriguez, 364 F.3d 424, 432 (2d Cir.2004). Galdieri-Ambrosini, 136 F.3d at 289 (citations omitted); Advance Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. U.S.......read more.


Summary: 303 F. Supp. Plaintiff filed an eleven count complaint, alleging the following: violation of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act against all Defendants (Count One); breach of contract against AOL (Count Two); CUTPA violation against AOL (Count Three); violation of the Fourth and First Amendments against Young and Bensey (Counts Four and Five); violation of Article First, §§ 4 and 7 of the Connecticut Constitution against Young and Bensey (Counts Six and Seven); invasion of privacy against Y......read more.


Summary: 299 F. Supp. Plaintiff, ANN MARIE IOSA, has filed a multi-count complaint against her former employer Defendant, GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., asserting various claims arising out of the termination of her employment by Defendant. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir.1984). 2d 80 (1957); Jaghory v. New York State Dep't of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir.1997). Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d 1085, 1088, 1092 (2d Cir.1995); Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937......read more.


Summary: 674 F. Supp. The Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") brought this enforcement action *378 challenging as false advertising the claims that the defendants, Bronson Partners, LLC ("Bronson") and Martin Howard (collectively "defendants") made in their advertisements for two products: Chinese Diet Tea ("Diet Tea") and the Bio-Slim Patch ("Patch"). For a detailed discussion of that history, including the factual and legal bases for the defendants' liability, see FTC v. Bronson Partners, LLC, 564 ......read more.


Summary: 132 F. Supp. Plaintiff brings this action challenging the constitutionality of the Connecticut sex offender registry act ("CT-SORA"), which requires registration by, and public disclosure of information concerning, persons designated as "sexual offenders." Plaintiff claims that the statute, commonly referred to as Connecticut's Megan's Law, deprives him of a protected liberty interest in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and, as applied to him, violates the Constitution'......read more.


Summary: 464 F. Supp. 2d 202 (1986); White v. ABCO Engineering Corp., 221 F.3d 293, 300 (2d Cir.2000). Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.2000). Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.2d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2000). Davenport v. Abrams, Inc., 249 F.3d 130, 133 (2d Cir.2001) (citing Kennedy v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 989 F.2d 588, 594 (2d Cir.1993)). Kennedy, 989 F.2d at 594 (citing Amato v. Bernard, 618 F.2d 559, 567 (9th Cir.1980)). Income Plan, 336 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir.2003); see ......read more.


Summary: 360 F. Supp. 228 (1973) Anthony J. MOFFETT, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Robert K. KILLIAN, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, et al., Defendants. Although Moffett is paid by CCAG for his work, which includes lobbying, he has refused to pay to the Secretary of the State the $35 which must be paid for the filing with the Secretary, of the statement of his legislative appearance as prescribed by the statute. In its broad outlines, § 2-45 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires that each pers......read more.


Summary: 405 F. Supp. Kochie v. Norton, 343 F. Supp. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 n. 2, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. Cf. Seale v. Manson, 326 F. Supp. Teterud v. Gillman, 385 F. Supp. 1968); United States v. Kahane, 396 F. Supp. Security concerns might well be adequately met by beard searches at reasonable intervals, see Teterud v. Gillman, supra, 385 F. Supp.


Summary: 582 F. Supp. United States v. Yale New Haven Hosp., 727 F. Supp. A Section 510 claim is made enforceable through Section 502(a)(3) and (e) of ERISA...." Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 977 F.2d 1129, 1134 (7th Cir.1992). Council Pension Fund, 445 F.3d 572, 578 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that Section 502(a)(3) "authorizes solely equitable relief....") (emphasis in original). Co., 186 F. Supp. NOTES [1] AT & T represents that, although the Plaintiff sued "AT & T," at the time of his termination, the Pla......read more.


Summary: 394 F. Supp. 2d 503 (2005) IM PARTNERS and Daniel E. Marino Plaintiffs, v. DEBIT DIRECT LIMITED, et al., Defendants. The plaintiffs, IM Partners and its general partner Daniel E. Marino, bring this action against defendants Debit Direct Limited ("Debit Direct"), Jack O'Halloran, David Butterworth, Michael Kelly, Skanco Business Systems Limited ("Skanco"), Barry Kennedy, Restart Limited ("Restart"), Ian Lloyd, Andrew Kermode, Domicilium (IOM) Limited, John Allen, and Patrick Walsh, alleging viola......read more.


Summary: (2007) Diedre GIANNINI, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. This case arises out of a one-car motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff, Diedre Giannini, sustained injuries when her vehicle crashed into a lamp post. Giannini brought several claims against the defendant, Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), alleging that defects in the manufacture of her vehicle caused her to sustain enhanced injuries. In an oral ruling on December 7, 2006, I denied Ford's motion with respect to Giannini's p......read more.


Summary: 325 F. Supp. A court may grant summary judgment "`if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact ....'" Miner v. Glens Falls, 999 F.2d 655, 661 (2d Cir.1993) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S. Ct. 993, 8 L. Ed. Dist., 963 F.2d 520, 523 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505), cert. Corp. v. ......read more.


Summary: 281 F. Supp. A weapon enhancement under USSG 2B3.1 is prohibited as a specific offense characteristic under Application Note 4[1] to USSG 2K2.4 ("Use of Firearm, Armorpiercing Ammunition, or Explosive During or in Relation to Certain Crimes") which specifies that "[i]f a sentence under this guideline is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense, do not apply any specific offense characteristic for possession, brandishing, use, or discharge of an explosive or firearm when d......read more.


Summary: 147 F. Supp. The plaintiffs, Nelida Valdes and Juan Rivera, bring this class action suit against Qwest Communications International, Inc., Qwest International Telecom Corp., d/b/a Qwest Communications Services, Qwest LCI, and Qwest, alleging that the defendants switched the plaintiffs' and other customers' long distance carriers to Qwest *119 without the consent of the customer, a practice known as slamming. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege a violation of Connecticut General Statutes ["CGS"] ......read more.


Summary: 395 F. Supp. 1954); Collins v. Bensinger, 374 F. Supp. 273, 277 (N.D.Ill.1974); Lombardi v. Peace, 259 F. Supp. See Johnston v. National Broadcasting Co., 356 F. Supp. 904, 909-910 (E.D.N.Y.1973); Post v. Payton, 323 F. Supp. See Calo v. Paine, 385 F. Supp. Cf. Calo v. Paine, 385 F. Supp. 1970): "Damages for defamation are not recoverable under the Civil Rights Act because a defamed person has not been deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured to him by the Constitution or laws o......read more.