Clear

3250 search results for query *


Summary: 594 F. Supp. *1250 Ford F. Farabow, Jr., Laurence R. Hefter, Michael C. Elmer, Allen M. Sokal, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garret & Dunner, Washington, D.C., Frederick J. Francis, Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff Crucible, Inc. In these consolidated suits, plaintiff Crucible, Inc. (hereafter "plaintiff" or "Crucible") seeks to enforce claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 3,746,518 (hereafter sometimes "the Holtz patent") and claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 3,561,934 (hereafter sometime......read more.


Summary: 433 F. Supp. The pension applied for was denied by the trustees by reason of break in service (BIS) provisions of the fund. During the interval September 10, 1962 to May 1966, plaintiff did not work in any covered meatpacking plant ("covered" as used herein means an employer covered by the pension fund.) (2) Are the break in service provisions contained in both the Local 424 plan and the national plan which operate to deprive Knauss of his previously earned pension credits as the result of his i......read more.


Summary: 81 B.R. 337 (1987) In re SPAGNOL ENTERPRISES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Debtors. SPAGNOL ENTERPRISES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Plaintiffs, v. PENN LEAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendants. *338 *339 Christopher A. Beck, Ravick, Beck & Henny, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pa., for Spagnol Enterprises, Inc. AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 1987, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECR......read more.


Summary: 113 F. Supp. Oshiver, 38 F.3d at 1384, n. 2; Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. White, 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.1993); 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 299 (2d ed.1993). Pension Benefit, 998 F.2d at 1196 (citing Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1991)), cert. Perhaps the broadest standard for what documents a court may consider without converting a 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment, was articulated by t......read more.


Summary: 743 F. Supp. 1, 487 A.2d 820 (1984); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Korman Corp., 693 F. Supp. 253 (E.D.Pa.1988); American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Neville Chemical Co., 650 F. Supp.


Summary: 363 F. Supp. Pursuant to a proper demand for jury trial, the case was tried to a jury limited initially, however, to the following issues: (1) validity of the patent, (2) whether or not the patent applicant, Richard H. Reinhold, plaintiff's assignor was the sole or joint inventor and (3) whether or not the patent was rendered invalid as the result of inequitable conduct or fraud on the Patent Office by the inventor and by the plaintiff, his assignee. After eight days of trial, the jury rendered ......read more.


Summary: 407 F. Supp. Once Coleman was in the police car, Livingstone asked Yamba and Kpakpo to step out of the truck so he could conduct a patdown search of both men. Such a "citizen encounter," the Court has explained, does not constitute a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment: "law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, [or] by putting questio......read more.


Summary: 131 B.R. 24 (1991) In re ALLEGHENY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Sunbeam Corporation, Sunbeam Holdings, Inc., Almet/Lawnlite, Inc., Chemetron Corporation, Integrated Specialties, Inc., Allegheny International (USA), Inc., Al-Industrial Products, Inc., Allegheny International Exercise Co., Woodshaft, Inc., Infoswitch, Inc., and Eliskim, Inc., Debtors. In that order, Allegheny International, Inc.'s (AI) motion for permission to pay commitment fees and expenses incurred during a due diligence investigation ......read more.


Summary: 143 F. Supp. Jenkins v. Dell Publishing Co., D.C.W.D.Pa.1955, 130 F. *954 Supp. Leverton v. Curtis Publishing Co., supra; Estill v. Hearst Publishing Co., 7 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 1017; Bernstein v. National Broadcasting Co., D.C.D.C.1955, 129 F. Supp.


Summary: 38 F.2d 489 (1930) BINDLEY et al. v. HEINER, Internal Revenue Collector. Section 318(a) of the same act (26 USCA § 1118(a), provides that, if the Commissioner, after the enactment of the act (February 28, 1926), determine that any assessment should be made with respect to any estate or gift tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1917, the Revenue Act of 1918, the Revenue Act of 1921, the Revenue Act of 1924, or any such act as amended, notice of the amount proposed to be assessed shall be given the e......read more.


Summary: 32 F. Supp. 732 (C.D.Ill.1997) (addressing a challenge under the Telecommunications Act where the county failed to issue a written statement of the reasons for denial of a special use permit, and making reference only to evidence presented before the zoning board); BellSouth Mobility, Inc. v. Gwinnett County, Ga., 944 F. Supp. 923 (N.D.Ga.1996) (assessing whether a decision denying a special use permit was supported by "substantial evidence," and looking only to evidence submitted before the *79......read more.


Summary: 343 B.R. 136 (2006) In re Susan HUFF, Debtor. The United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service ("government") appeals from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania's order determining that the government's setoff of Debtor Susan Huffs 2003 income tax refund was impermissible because the government failed to follow the proper notification requirements under 31 U.S.C. § 3720A. I. BACKGROUND In 1991, Susan Huff obtained a loan from the Rural Hous......read more.


Summary: 467 F. Supp. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation of November 21, 2006 recommended that Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment (Docket # 28) and to Strike Plaintiffs Affidavit (Docket # 42) be denied and that this Court remand the case to the Administrator for interpretation of the Plan language at issue and, if necessary, reconsideration of Plaintiffs benefit claim in the first instance, all as more fully set forth in the Magistrate's Report. It is also recommended that this Court......read more.


Summary: 512 F. Supp. 1310 (1981) Rae SCHUPACK, individually and Rae Schupack on behalf of herself and all other stockholders of 2170 East Lake Road, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Albert COVELLI, Robert Orchard, 2170 East Lake Road, Inc., and McDonald's Corporation, Defendants. The plaintiff in this action, Rae Schupack, was at one time a minority shareholder in 2170 East Lake Road, Inc., a corporation which was exclusively licensed by McDonald's Corporation to operate McDonald's Fast Food Restaurants in the Erie,......read more.


Summary: 776 F. Supp. 2d 57 (2011) Melissa M. BURNS, Plaintiff, v. Gary D. ALEXANDER, Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, in his official capacity, and Raymond S. Hart, Defendants. I. Introduction This action involves a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law ("CPSL") [23 PA. The CPSL requires certain individuals to report known cases of child abuse to the DPW or the appropriate county agencies.Pursuant ......read more.


Summary: 152 B.R. 44 (1993) In re Alfred M. DECARBO, t/a Davis Supply Company, and Al Decarbo Corporation, t/a Davis Supply Company, Debtors. In re F.E. Frederick Enterprises, Inc., 146 B.R. 360, 362 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1992); In re Sound Radio, Inc., 145 B.R. 193, 207 (Bankr.D.N.J.1992). "


Summary: 155 F. Supp. In this case the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant railroad to recover for damages he suffered as a result of injuries sustained by him while employed on said railroad on March 10, 1954, as a flagman. Foresman v. Pepin, D.C.E.D.Pa.1946, 71 F. Supp. See also Tomaine v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.W.D.Pa.1956, 144 F. Supp.


Summary: 96 F. Supp. The question presented was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to be paid on the basis of a twenty-four hour day for the time they spent as guards in the plant of the defendant during a strike from January 18, 1946 to February 9, 1946. 70 F. Supp. In support of its motion to vacate or modify the judgments, the defendant contends: (1) the claims are barred by Section 2 of the Portal to Portal Act; (2) any contract which might be said to have existed did not extend beyond January 25, ......read more.


Summary: 25 F. Supp. 2d 605 (1997) Craig WILLIAMS, Terrance Williams, Harold Wilson, Mumia Abu Jamal, Robert Wharton, Ronald F. Gibson, Leroy Thomas, Robert Atkins, James Dennis, and All Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, v. James L. PRICE, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Greene; and Martin Horn, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Defendants. November 25, 1997. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation, f......read more.


Summary: 460 F. Supp. The bond was executed in accordance with the requirement of the Public Works Contractors Bond Law of 1967, 8 P.S. § 191 et seq., that the general contractor provide a payment bond for the protection of subcontractors on any public works project. Art Metal Construction Co. v. Lehigh Structural Steel Co., 116 F.2d 57 (3rd Cir. In Lite-Air Products, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 437 F. Supp.