3249 search results for query

Citation: 47 B.R. 423 | Docket No.: Civ. Nos. 4-84-1284, 4-85-104
Status: Published | Citing: 3
Summary: 47 B.R. 423 (1985) F & M MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff, v. Keith R. RICHARDS, Defendant.

Citation: 460 F. Supp. 73 | Docket No.: 3-78 Civ. 218
Status: Published | Citing: 31
Summary: 460 F. Supp. He specifically claims that (1) his Fifth Amendment due process rights have been abrogated; (2) the guidelines violate the legislative intent of the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4201, et seq. (1976); (3) the guidelines operate as ex post facto laws; (4) the guidelines intrude on the judicial sentencing function; and (5) the guidelines fail to consider institutional performance and rehabilitation as required in the case of an individual sentenced under 18 more.

Citation: 553 F. Supp. 2d 1098 | Docket No.: Civil File No. 07-4427 (MJD/AJB)
Status: Published | Citing: 21
Summary: (2008) Nathan Andrew BRYANT, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY, Defendant. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On October 30, 2007, Plaintiff Nathan Andrew Bryant filed a Complaint against Defendant Department of the Army. Bryant's Complaint states: This is a civil action for money damages brought by the plaintiff against the Department of Army as a result of the Department of the Army not paying the plaintiffs school loans, and bonus awarded to[] the plaintiff by the United States Army in the plaintiffs more.

Citation: 936 F. Supp. 644 | Docket No.: Civil 3-95-1083
Status: Published | Citing: 14
Summary: 936 F. Supp. 644 (1996) Leroy THOMPSON, a minor, By and Through his parent and legal guardian, Synarvia Jene BUCHANON, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF the SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, (Minneapolis), Peter Hutchinson, in his official capacity as Superintendent, Bruce Johnson, in his official capacity only as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (MDCFL), MDCFL, and Board of Education, sued as Minnesota State Board of Education, Defendants. The above-entitled matter more.

Citation: 186 B.R. 667 | Docket No.: Bankruptcy No. 4-94-3841. Civ. No. 3-95-332
Status: Published | Citing: 10
Summary: 186 B.R. 667 (1995) In re Kenneth L. KASDEN, Debtor. STEINER AND SAFFER, Appellant, v. Kenneth L. KASDEN, Respondent. Appellant argues the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining the debtor did not lose his *669 homestead exemption when he failed to occupy his property for more than six months without filing notice as required by Minnesota Statute § 510.07. Approximately one year later, the judgment was amended to include the debtor in this case, Kenneth Kasden, as an additional judgment debtor. more.

Citation: 704 F. Supp. 2d 832 | Docket No.: Civil No. 09-1939 (PAM/JSM)
Status: Published | Citing: 14
Summary: 704 F. Supp. *834 J. David Jackson, Bradley T. Smith, F. Matthew Ralph, Ivan M. Ludmer, J. Thomas Vitt, Megan C. Dempsey, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for National Arbitration Forum Trade Practices Litigation. There are three Motions pending: one brought by Defendants Dispute Management Services, *835 LLC, National Arbitration Forum, Inc., and National Arbitration Forum, LLC; one by Defendants Accretive, LLC, and Agora; and one by Defendant Mann Bracken LLP. Axiant in turn owns moving more.

Citation: 650 F. Supp. 2d 900 | Docket No.: Case No. 05-CV-1464 (PJS/RLE)
Status: Published | Citing: 31
Summary: 650 F. Supp. 2d 900 (2009) SPECTRALYTICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CORDIS CORPORATION and Norman Noble, Inc., Defendants. This matter was tried to a jury, which found that defendants Cordis Corporation ("Cordis") and Norman Noble, Inc. ("Noble")[1] willfully infringed United States Patent No. 5,852,277 (the '277 patent). The jury awarded Spectralytics $22.35 million in compensatory damages for Cordis's infringement, an award that the jury arrived at by assessing a five-percent *904 royalty on sales more.

Citation: 98 B.R. 472 | Docket No.: Civ. No. 4-88-772, Bankruptcy No. 4-87-3115
Status: Published | Citing: 14
Summary: 98 B.R. 472 (1989) In re Walter R. FALK, Debtor. Walter R. FALK, Appellant, v. Elaine S. HECKER, Appellee. The evidence supports the bankruptcy court's finding of privity between Falk as debtor-in-possession and Falk as a party to the dissolution order. NOTES [1] The statute provides: (a) The trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property, or any obligation incurred by the debtor, that was made or incurred on or within one year before the date of the filing of the more.

Citation: 481 F. Supp. 2d 974 | Docket No.: Civ. No. 04-2679 (JNE/JSM)
Status: Published | Citing: 14
Summary: 481 F. Supp. The patents in suit are each entitled "Reverse Flow Air Filter Arrangement and Method." Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed.Cir.1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996). Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc), cert. 2d 49 (2006); Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 ("First, we look to the words of the claims themselves, both asserted and nonasserted, to define the scope more.

Citation: 634 F. Supp. 767 | Docket No.: Civ. No. 4-86-69
Status: Published | Citing: 3
Summary: 634 F. Supp. Republic Precious Metals, Inc. v. Republic Precious Metals Corp., 575 F. Supp.

Citation: 23 F. Supp. 2d 1081 | Docket No.: Civil No. 3-96-1191(PAM/JGL)
Status: Published | Citing: 42
Summary: 23 F. Supp. Apr.30, 1998)) (order granting summary judgment as to Plaintiff's violation of due process claims, respondeat superior claim under § 1983, and dismissing individual defendants from Plaintiffs ADA, MHRA, and FRA claims.) F.) However, the County advised Plaintiff that it would "endeavor to make whatever reasonable accommodations are necessary in view [her] medical issues." 2d 265 (1986); Unigroup, Inc. v. O'Rourke Storage & Transfer Co., 980 F.2d 1217, 1219-20 (8th Cir.1992). 7 at 490; more.

Citation: 945 F. Supp. 188 | Docket No.: Civil No. 4-95-635
Status: Published | Citing: 15
Summary: 945 F. Supp. 2d 197 (1996); Reiff v. Interim Personnel, Inc., 906 F. Supp. Co., 920 F. Supp. Larson v. Koch Refining Co., 920 F. Supp. Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1181-82 (6th Cir.1993); Carlson v. InaCom Corp., 885 F. Supp. Co., 47 F.3d 928, 934 (7th Cir.1995); Magruder v. Runyon, 844 F. Supp.

Citation: 287 F. Supp. 2d 1000 | Docket No.: 02-4081 ADM/AJB
Status: Published | Citing: 7
Summary: 287 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (2003) Eric AARVIG, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION This matter came before the undersigned United States District Judge on August 28, 2003, for oral argument on the cross Motions for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Eric Aarvig ("Plaintiff" or "Aarvig"), and all others similarly situated [Docket No. 19] and of Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company ("Defendant" or "Liberty Mutual") [ more.

Citation: 612 F. Supp. 438 | Docket No.: Civ. No. 4-84-192
Status: Published | Citing: 15
Summary: 612 F. Supp. See also Lighting Systems v. International Merchandising Associates, Inc., 464 F. Supp. See Hoffacker v. Bike House, 540 F. Supp. See Joseph F. Corcoran Shoe Co. v. Frank Noone Shoe Co., 164 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 341 (S.D.N.Y.1969); Proler Steel Corp. v. Luria Brothers & Company, 223 F. Supp.

Citation: 748 F. Supp. 2d 1030 | Docket No.: Case No. 09-CV-1706 (PJS/FLN)
Status: Published | Citing: 28
Summary: 748 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (2010) Samuel N. EDEH, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant. Plaintiff Samuel N. Edeh brings this action against defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("Midland"), alleging that Midland's efforts to collect a debt owed by Edeh violated various consumer-protection statutes. In January 2010, Edeh and Midland brought cross-motions for summary judgment. Edeh filed objections to Judge Noel's R & R on June 5, 2010 [Docket No. 82], June 7, 2010 [Docket No. more.

Citation: 174 F. Supp. 2d 962 | Docket No.: 0:99-cv-715
Status: Published | Citing: 12
Summary: 174 F. Supp. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548; Mt. Pleasant v. Associated Elec. Coop., Inc., 838 F.2d 268 (8th Cir. See Dykes v. SEPTA, 68 F.3d 1564, 1569 (3rd Cir.1995) (holding that a union may expressly or implicitly consent to drug testing of the employees it represents); Bolden v. Southeastern Penn. Authority, 953 F.2d 807, 828 (3rd Cir.1991) (holding that a union, acting as an exclusive bargaining agent, may consent to drug testing on behalf of the employees it represents). See more.

Citation: 51 F. Supp. 938 | Docket No.: Civ. No. 162
Status: Published
Summary: 51 F. Supp. That substantially all employees employed by the above named defendant since October 24, 1938, at the above named branch places of business are and had been engaged at all times during his or her employment in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the Act. That with respect to those persons employed in the performance of office and more.

Citation: 815 F. Supp. 1266 | Docket No.: Civ. No. 3-92-701
Status: Published | Citing: 30
Summary: 815 F. Supp. 1266 (1993) APPLETREE SQUARE 1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, CHRC of Bloomington, Inc., its general partner, and Crimark Office Building Associates Limited Partnership, its general partner, Plaintiffs, v. W.R. GRACE & CO., individually and as successor in interest to the Zonolite Company, Western Mineral Products Co., Inc., Multibestos Company, the Dewey & Almy Chemical Company, Universal Zonolite Company and all other predecessor companies, Defendants. Introduction Plaintiffs Appletree more.

Citation: 395 F. Supp. 23 | Docket No.: Civ. No. 5-74-20
Status: Published | Citing: 21
Summary: 395 F. Supp. 23 (1974) NAMEKAGON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. BOIS FORTE RESERVATION HOUSING AUTHORITY et al., Defendants. This action for damages was brought by the Namekagon Development Corporation against the Bois Forte Reservation Housing Authority, the Bois Forte Reservation Business Committee, and the United States of America. See, Thompson v. United States, 408 F.2d 1075 (8th Cir. 91, 405 F.2d 1361, 1366 (1968); Cenna v. United States, 402 F.2d 168 (3rd Cir. 291 (1919); Twin more.