 |
DIBRELL BROTHERS INT'L S.A. V. BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Dibrell Brothers Int'l S.A. v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</i><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="797"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/93-8452.opa.html">DIBRELL BROTHERS INT'L S.A. V. BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dibrell Brothers Int'l S.A. v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</i><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="782"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1122.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hawkes & Goldings were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. District Judge. was convicted of conspiracy to defraud two federally insured banks and to transport forged securities in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2314 (Count 1). Jones argues on appeal that (1) a UCC 3 release of collateral form is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="779"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/066068P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
STANDARD OF REVIEW We review findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo.2 The central issue on appeal whether the Appellees qualify as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1598.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="743"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1087.html">DUNCAN MCCOY V. MITSUBOSHI<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="740"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021299.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The district court properly applied both the Uniform Commercial Code and Virginia procedural law to these claims to find that the suit was filed outside of the applicable limitations period. Which is not a party to this suit. The AMTC systems were part of a Remote Target System (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/991260P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is not subject to mandatory arbitration. Christy argues that the district court erred in interpreting the pertinent contract documents because (1) Christy's customer acknowledgment was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1600.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Jennifer A. Also on the brief were Gregory N. On the brief were Timothy S. Also on the brief was Allan M. Is the assignee of three patents. At issue in this case is the fixed price purchasing feature of eBay's website. Which allows customers to purchase items that are listed on eBay's website for a fixed. At the time this action was brought. ReturnBuy owned and operated an Internet website that was hosted by the eBay website. Where items available for sale by ReturnBuy were displayed in an eBay listing. The district court ruled that claims 1 35 and 51 52 of the '051 patent were invalid for lack of enablement. That neither the '265 patent nor the '176 patent was invalid. EBay and Half.com moved for judgment as a matter of law (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="714"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053766P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
SMG was a frozen poultry wholesaler based in Rogers. Sanderson was one of SMG's chicken suppliers. The request was denied. The poultry in fourteen of the twenty four containers was sold during the pendency of the investigation and the appeal. The containers were seized anew by Russian authorities as part of a different investigation involving Techpromptorg. The ten containers were never returned to SMG or P & O. Arguing (1) P & O was not an intended thirdparty beneficiary of the Lloyd's policy. Finding P & O was not an intended beneficiary of the Lloyd's policy and SMG did not have an insurable interest in the cargo at the time of seizure. The moving party is entitled to summary judgment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/973941P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurisdiction This case was originally filed in Minnesota state court. McGill and Emerson removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.3 Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed under Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Frigidaire is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio. McGill is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana. Emerson is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. Although Emerson is an appellee in this case. The price quotation also indicated that McGill offered to sell the switches at the quoted price and the offer was made for immediate acceptance by Frigidaire. Its tests indicated that the switches were not completely resistant to water. This Purchase Order is to be accepted in writing by Seller by signing and returning promptly to Buyer the Acknowledgment Copy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-10417.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-10417.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1705p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether the obligors on unmatured promissory notes can obtain declaratory relief against the obligees of those notes and have the notes declared void and unenforceable. Whether transactions involving investment securities are covered under section 9.2(a) of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade 2 Practices and Consumer Protection Law (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May26/03-40652-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contesting each claim on which damages were awarded. Because the agreement is unenforceable under the statute of frauds as a transaction in goods with no ascertainable quantity term. Attwood moved for judgment as a matter of law urging that the Texas Uniform Commercial Code governed the parties' agreement and that its statute of frauds bars recovery.2 The statute of frauds bars recovery under a sales contract that lacks a written quantity term or a written specification that the buyer will purchase exclusively from the seller.3 Attwood points out that the agreement at issue. Which is the total of the awards for fraudulent inducement ($366. The court determined that the U.C.C. did not apply because the contract was not a sale of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1642.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Davis and McGovern & Associates were on brief for appellant. Crisafulli were on brief for appellees Fleet National Bank and Fleet Credit Corp. With whom McGair & McGair was on brief for appellees C & J Jewelry Co. The facts are related in the light most favorable to appellant Peters. At 6 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062163np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Who are already familiar with the facts of this case. We will restate those facts only as necessary for our analysis. Was a wholesale music and video distributor. Valley Media contracted with various internet vendors to fulfill retail contracts the internet vendors had with Massachusetts customers through what are known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022169p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On appeal is a motion to compel arbitration in a commercial dispute. At issue are principles of contract formation under the Uniform Commercial Code. The initial offer was rejected but negotiations continued and. The specific offer was for the purchase of a glass bending and tempering furnace and a flat laminating line 200/400. 3 below our terms and conditions related to ORDER # DKH2199.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-4086.htm">03-4086 -- LIFEWISE MASTER FUNDING V. TELEBANK -- 06/29/2004<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/99-5136.htm">99-5136 -- WEBCO INDUSTRIES INC. V. THERMATOOL CORP. -- 01/18/2002<BR></A><BR>
That these claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The claim for breach of the performance guarantee was tried to a jury. Contending the court erred in ruling that the contract and UCC claims were barred. Asserting that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Webco's claim to enforce the performance guarantee and. That Webco's damages on that claim should have been limited to the purchase price of the machine. Remand for further proceedings. <p> <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>The background facts set out here are relevant to Thermatool's argument on appeal that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Webco's claim under the performance guarantee. <em>See </em>Part III.A. Webco was at full capacity and wanted a new mill to broaden its production line and customer base. Who was vice president for technical services with Webco at the time. Obermark that Thermatool was interested and anxious to build the machine and that the Thermatool engineering department was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2551_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because neither party contends that any of the findings of fact in this section are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/952548P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The facts involved in this case are substantially uncontested. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/066001P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal of the bankruptcy court's determination that the Plaintiff's interest in certain personal property in the Debtor's possession is superior to the Debtor's interest in that property and that the Debtor must relinquish possession to the Plaintiff. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(b). STANDARD OF REVIEW We review findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo.2 The sole issue on appeal is whether the court properly interpreted Nebraska UCC § 2A305. Matters of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.3 II. BACKGROUND The issue on appeal is purely legal. The facts are straightforward and undisputed. Leased two pieces of equipment (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04b0004p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are vendors who filed timely reclamation claims against the Debtor. Appellants now appeal the bankruptcy court's decision finding that their reclamation claims are not entitled to administrative expense priority pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c)(2) and relegating their claims to the status of general unsecured. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL (1) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in denying administrative expense priority or a lien to reclaiming sellers whose goods were proposed to be consumed by the Debtor in its manufacturing activities. (2) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining the validity and priority of reclamation claims pursuant to motion rather than adversary complaint. (3) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining that the Appellants were not entitled to require a marshaling of the assets to protect their reclamation claims. Neither party has timely elected to have this appeal heard by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(b)(6). The order and judgment on appeal are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0092n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(CRI) was unable to fulfill its contractual obligation to supply coal to Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) due to an alleged force majeure event. Inc. was the coal merchant in the middle that held contracts with both CRI and LG&E. The district court concluded that CRI's breach of contract claim against LG&E was time barred under the Uniform Commercial Code's four year statute of limitations. Factual background At issue in this case is CRI's attempt to collect upon an unpaid invoice for coal. Coal Equity is a merchant of coal that acts principally as a middleman between buyers and sellers. CRI notified Coal Equity that it was invoking the force majeure clause in the Coal Equity contract as to future delivery obligations. LG&E stated that payment would be withheld
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1086.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The proponents of this view argue that the federal courts are overburdened. We have little doubt that this case would have been better brought in an Indiana state court. It was the appellee that chose to file its complaint in federal court and it was that complaint which sought novel remedies. Although we are not fans of delay. It is with limited sympathy that ultimately we must certify several of the questions raised in this appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. DFS purchased
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/002710.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the district court's ruling as to Carlisle's liability. I. Glenn is a purchaser and reseller of various types of 1. Glenn and Carlisle have had a business relationship since at least 1995. The Purchase Order was for all of the close out goods on the June 5 list. The Purchase Order specifically referenced that list stating:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1014.html">GROUP ONE V. HALLMARK CARDS<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/96-1066.wpd.html">AVEDON ENG'G, INC. V. SEATEX<BR></A><BR>
Whose true names are unknown. I. Twist was formed in 1992 to design and manufacture clothing and accessories for the snowboard industry. Twist's principal place of business was Colorado and Seatex's principal place of business was New York. Some special conditions of performance were noted in small type at the bottom front of the confirmation form. Among which was a notice regarding arbitration.(3) Two clauses relevant to arbitration appeared in full on the back of the form. Clause 11 provided that future transactions between the parties would be controlled by the terms of the sales confirmation form unless superseded by a signed contract.(4) (1) Defendant Seatex is a New York based division of Balson Hercules. Seatex is a converter of textiles which buys fabric in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-1066.htm">96-1066 -- AVEDON ENGINEERING, INC. V. SEATEX -- 10/03/1997<BR></A><BR>
Whose true names are unknown. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. <p> <center><strong>I.</center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Twist was formed in 1992 to design and manufacture clothing and accessories for the snowboard industry. Twist's principal place of business was Colorado and Seatex's principal place of business was New York. Some special conditions of performance were noted in small type at the bottom front of the confirmation form. Among which was a notice regarding arbitration.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-5219.htm">98-5219 -- INTERFAB LTD. V. VALIANT INDUSTRIER -- 08/03/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff InterFab. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-5206.htm">99-5206 -- NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE CO. V. RONAN ENGINEERING CO. -- 07/13/2001<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1486.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1876.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Beliveau & Pachios was on brief for appellant. Ashley & Bull was on brief for appellee Rodney A. With whom Hale & Hamlin was on brief for appellee Young Brothers & Company. Before us is Vernay's appeal of the district court's judgment. Also before us is Sullivan's cross appeal of the district court's finding that Young Brothers was not liable. Almost verbatim from the district court's detailed opinion. 2 The SEA FEVER is a forty foot. Which was composed. Which is a manufacturer of various fiberglass components of marine wet exhaust systems. Was the parts supplier from which Young Brothers purchased the Vernatube installed aboard the SEA FEVER. The SEA FEVER's wet exhaust system was constructed with a fifteen foot length of Vernatube. Because Vernatube is sold in ten foot lengths. This span of Vernatube was connected to the engine at the exhaust manifold by a flexible rubber hose and rigidly installed in the hull of the vessel by fiberglass where the Vernatube passed through the fish hold bulkhead. It was also fiberglassed to each of the two bulkheads and the transom 1 Sullivan's complaint included claims against H & H Propeller under theories of strict liability and breach of express and implied warranties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981739.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When a dispute arose as to whether Serralles was entitled to damages for breach of the agreement. Seeking a determination that Serralles is limited under the agreement to the exclusive remedy of repair. Contends that it is entitled to the full array of remedies provided by the South Carolina Uniform Commercial Code (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/97-4250.opn.html">MCC-MARBLE CERAMIC CTR., INC. V. CERAMICA NUOVA D'AGOSTINO, S.P.A. (6/29/1998, NO. 97-4250)<BR></A><BR>
Is a Florida corporation engaged<EM></EM> in the retail sale of tiles. Ceramica Nuova d'Agostino S.p.A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/97-4250.opn.html">MCC-MARBLE CERAMIC CTR., INC. V. CERAMICA NUOVA D'AGOSTINO, S.P.A. (6/29/1998, NO. 97-4250)<BR></A><BR>
Is a Florida corporation engaged<EM></EM> in the retail sale of tiles. Ceramica Nuova d'Agostino S.p.A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1144p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Amana is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1577.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Griffin</SPAN> was on brief. Levinson LLP</SPAN> were on brief. We nonetheless reach the same ultimate conclusion and affirm the judgment.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-1229.htm">01-1229 -- LEANIN' TREE INC. V. THIELE TECHNOLOGIES INC. -- 08/01/2002<BR></A><BR>
Asserting that (1) it was entitled to judgment based upon its defense of commercial impracticability. The machine was to be completed and shipped to Leanin' Tree on June 30. Thiele was unable to get the cartoner to operate properly. Which was designed to take stacks of flat unfolded cartons (essentially individual sheets of shaped and scored plastic) and allow cards to be inserted inside. Was not functioning effectively. Even though the carton set up portion of the machine was still not functioning properly. The cartoner was finished and its obligations under the agreement were fulfilled. Thiele further informed Leanin' Tree that any problems with the cartoner were the result of Leanin' Tree's failure to provide an acceptable carton design and were Leanin' Tree's responsibility. Thiele's costs in designing and producing the machine were in the neighborhood of $750. After sending a representative to observe the cartoner at Thiele's facility (and confirming that the cartoner was not working properly). The case was tried to the district court in February 2001.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/991424P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The Marvin companies are Minnesota and Tennessee corporations that manufacture and sell custom made wooden doors. Which is effective in preventing premature wood rot and decay caused by moisture penetration. The central allegation is that PPG's products did not meet Marvin's expectations in preventing wood rot and deterioration in Marvin's doors and windows. There are thirteen legal theories in the Amended Complaint: (I) contract. The procedural background of the case is somewhat complicated. There are three central issues in this appeal. We must decide whether Marvin's contract claims are barred by the governing statute of limitations. We decide whether Marvin is protected by the state statutes on which it bases its statutory fraud claims. This case is governed by state substantive law. Where the state law is uncertain. Our task 3 is to predict how the state supreme court would resolve the issue if faced with it. We believe there is a jury question as to the existence of a future performance warranty.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1208.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The judge's ground was that CILCO had failed to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code's statute of frauds (codified in Illinois as 810 ILCS. Which was due to expire on the last day of that year.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055239np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the judgment against Selco and remand for a new trial to determine whether Vanalt may recover damages in this case and. All the connectors were installed by Vanalt between June and November 2002. Vanalt's efforts to have Selco take responsibility for resolving the problems with the connectors were not successful and. The connectors were satisfactory. We have jurisdiction to review the District Court's judgment and order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. That the District Court's ruling was in effect a judgment as a matter of law against Selco on the affirmative defense that it had limited its liability by adding certain terms to the contract.1 Our review of the District Court's ruling is therefore plenary. Villanueva v. 1 The District Court ruled as follows: [The first of the] issues remaining that I told counsel I'd discuss here is the issue of the term and condition [sic] of the contract. Was not a part of this contract. A finding by the jury that these terms and conditions identified in the record . . . were part of the contract and the jury would have to guess to reach such a conclusion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/021036u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the district court's judgment. We recount the facts and the procedural history of the case only as they are relevant to the following discussion. Inc. (hereinafter referred to collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/062252P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the first tower was erected. The owner rejected it because the base plate was warped. The dispute is governed by the Missouri Uniform Commercial Code. The contract price as amended by three change orders was $601. Trinity's two page sale agreement was accepted by Burgess. Louis workplace on behalf of Burgess1 noticed that the base plate was warping. Efforts to eliminate the warping during the final welding were unsuccessful.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/011375P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Poultry by product meal is the main ingredient in HPN's Science Diet® and Prescription Diet® pet foods. One of which was Simmons. The first long term contract was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/00-1171.htm">00-1171 -- HAYNES TRANE SERVICE AGENCY V. AMERICAN STANDARD INC. -- 08/27/2002<BR></A><BR>
The contract was for an indeterminate period and stated that it could
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/953198.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In which Senior Judge Phillips joined. *Judge Russell heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). I. The district court's order granting summary judgment to Thompson and NIBCO is reviewed de novo. I.e. summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact. The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the non moving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case with respect to which the non2 moving party has the burden of proof. Beard is a Virginia corporation engaged in providing materials and labor related to plumbing and heating. Which was originally named as a defendant in the case but later non suited after Thompson and NIBCO were granted summary judgment. Which was never named as a party. There were no contracts between Beard and either manufacturer. When the fittings cracked and subsequently leaked after hot water was used in the system.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1429.html">MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY V. CHEMIQUE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1087.html">U. S. TEST, INC. V. N D E ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.<BR></A><BR>
That the patents were invalid and unenforceable. <U>See</U> <U>id.</U> at ¶¶ . Test was liable for contributory infringement of the '453 patent. <U>See</U> Am. UCIC was obligated to defend U.S. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-8020.htm">99-8020 -- IN RE: CHAPTER 12 ESTATE OF HARRIS V. MCPHERSON TRUST -- 07/07/2000<BR></A><BR>
Which are subject to a share agreement. Although the facts of this case are somewhat peculiar. Which have considered the seemingly common situation of creditors attempting to assert security interests in animals run. P. 4(a) and affirm. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971685.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree and hold that when the predominant purpose of a maritime or land based contract is the rendering of services rather than the furnishing of goods. The U.C.C. is inapplicable. Attached to both GE Quotations were GE's terms and conditions. Were to govern the contract. Good metal was removed from the rotor. It was undisputed. Judgment as a matter of law is proper
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/022674p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An agreement its predecessor entered into with Pillowtex.1 The District Court denied Duke's motion on the grounds that the MESA was not a true lease. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the District Court correctly determined that the MESA entered into between Pillowtex and Duke prior to Pillowtex's bankruptcy filing was a secured financing arrangement rather than a true lease. The MESA was a secured financing arrangement. 1. Facts and Procedural Background Because the nature of the MESA is at issue. The production equipment was provided to Pillowtex by Duke pursuant to separate stand alone agreements. Which were recorded as true leases on Pillowtex's books. Only the nature of the parties' arrangements concerning the energysavings equipment is at issue in this appeal. Which were installed in nine of Pillowtex's facilities and a new wastewater heat recovery system that included hot water heating equipment (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/024177p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide two issues: (1) whether the transfer between Tops and Congress was a transfer of Tops' interest in leases. We conclude that the transfer was of proceeds and not of an interest in real property. Because the transfer of Tops' interest in these proceeds occurred more than ninety days before the bankruptcy petition was filed. The transfer is not a voidable preference under § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Congress is engaged in the business of commercial finance and asset based lending. The purchase price for the leases was $10 million. 000 which was added later when the landlord of one of the stores agreed to extend its lease for Best Buy. Tops was to convey the three leases to Best Buy and hand over keys for each of the locations. These terms were carried out as agreed. Was actually paid three days later on November 3. The remainder of the escrowed proceeds were paid to Congress on December 7. This 3 was converted to Chapter 7 on April 16.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/983217P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Excluded from regulation under the CEA are contracts for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-4395_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I know that Styberg wants a commitment for a minimum number of units that Eaton will buy (to protect Styberg's capital expenditures). I believe Eaton is willing to give Styberg that commitment as well. . . . I believe Eaton will guarantee the number of units it takes to pay off your capital investments. However many that is. (like the 13. 000 we were discussing before) . . . . Getting a minimum unit commitment from Eaton was important to Styberg because. The first 1 Fletcher died before trial and was only partially deposed. 000 units sold would have an average price of $544.88. 000 units were produced and an additional $31 per unit charge until a certain snap in coil became available for manufacturing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0399p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Procedural History Plaintiffs are twelve individual businesses and business persons who operate gasoline service station facilities which they either own or lease from Sunoco. Each Plaintiff operates a single gasoline service station facility in Central Ohio which is either owned or leased from Sunoco. Each Plaintiff is a party to a Dealer Franchise Agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/021515P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where the Andante was located. The details of this agreement were handwritten by each party on separate sheets of paper and at some point converted. The agreement further stated the sale was contingent on a marine survey. This license agreement is the only document in the dispute signed by both parties and it does not refer to the Andante. While the application for the TRO was pending. The issue was discussed during oral argument on appeal. When
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0137p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff's case was properly removed to the district court. Our second inquiry is whether the federal or state standard for vacating an arbitration award should apply when the parties' agreement contains both an arbitration clause and a general choice of law provision requiring the application of a particular state's law. Ltd. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1175.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Senior Circuit Judge. district court to recover three paintings it alleges are in the possession of Robert McKean but to which he is not entitled. The district court ruled that McKean is entitled to retain possession of the paintings and entered judgment for McKean. I. Felix DeWeldon is a well known sculptor and art collector. Told him that his father was interested in selling some of his paintings. Felix DeWeldon was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/98-5243.htm">98-5243 -- STATE BANK & TRUST V. FIRST STATE BANK OF TEXAS -- 12/20/2000<BR></A><BR>
The trial court granted summary judgment to State Bank on its claims and in a non jury trial held that State Bank was not liable on any of Bank of Texas's counterclaims. Only Bank of Texas's counterclaims are at issue. Payment was accomplished by means of a documentary draft. Once a draft was received by the buyer's bank. The buyer was required to verify the draft. Determine whether the title documentation was in order. Instruct the bank either to pay the draft or to return the draft unpaid. <p> At issue in this appeal are seven documentary drafts drawn on Ventura's account and presented by Bank of Texas to State Bank for payment (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19974250.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a Florida corporation engaged in the retail sale of tiles. Ceramica Nuova d'Agostino S.p.A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D4FFBFF0A3EB07FE8825713800822D9E/$file/0415595.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Following its determination that 50% to 100% of the Epogen it purchased from Dialysist West was counterfeit. AmerisourceBergen filed a reply to Dialysist West's counterclaim conceding that it had not paid for the non Epogen products and that these products were genuine. JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW We have subject matter jurisdiction over the final decision of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The denial of AmerisourceBergen's motion for leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The district court's Rule 54(b) certification of the judgment is reviewed de novo to determine if it will lead to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A83797913C46AAB882571FF00552C64/$file/0415595.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Following its determination that 50% to 100% of the Epogen it purchased from Dialysist West was counterfeit. AmerisourceBergen filed a reply to Dialysist West's counterclaim conceding that it had not paid for the non Epogen products (including Procrit) and that these products were genuine. JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW We have subject matter jurisdiction over the final decision of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The denial of AmerisourceBergen's motion for leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The district court's Rule 54(b) certification of the judgment is reviewed de novo to determine if it will lead to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1928.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Upham LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Taft</SPAN> was on brief. S</SPAN> were on brief. We add details only where necessary.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0423p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also held that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Henkel's promise to honor Gage's higher prices upon Chrysler's approval amounted to fraud. 2001 quote was based on the prices that Gage had quoted and that Chrysler had been reviewing since November 2000.2 Four months earlier. The March 2001 prices quoted to Henkel actually were higher than the increased prices Gage sought from Chrysler in November 2000. Which were to have taken effect the preceding November 15. Hohauser responded that Gage was expecting Chrysler to authorize its higher prices. Henkel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/94-5135.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court held that First National was eligible for subrogation under 11 U.S.C. 509(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 158(d). I. The facts of this case are undisputed. Debtor disputed First National's right to the credit card proceeds and asserted that it was entitled to the $111. An involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed against Tom Slamans. 1992 to determine who was entitled to the $111. Its interest in the credit card proceeds was superior to all other claimants. First National asserted that it was entitled to the $111. It was subrogated to Sun Company's right under the distributor agreement to setoff the credit card proceeds in its possession against the $192. [First National] is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of Sun Company.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7687003721CC047D88256E5A00707CC5/$file/9935946.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court found that the payments were not avoidable transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). We agree with the bankruptcy court and the district court that the trustee did not satisfy his burden of showing that TCFC received a greater amount by virtue of the payments than it would have received in a hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation. TCFC was one of Smith's primary lenders for almost a decade. TCFC's loans were secured by a first priority floating lien on the prime inventory and the proceeds from it.1 Thus. That lien was junior to the prime collateral liens of Smith's other secured creditors. 13137 Smith's. The Bank advanced new funds to Smith's if sufficient collateral was available. The case was converted to a chapter 2 Because of these procedures. Which we will describe below. Were not made directly from the proceeds of the sales of TCFC's collateral. 13138 7 liquidation and Batlan was appointed as trustee. Believing that the payments were preferential. That the trustee had failed to meet his burden of proof in showing that the payments were preferential transfers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60BCD81051F66FB388256AC600134EF1/$file/9935946.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court found that the payments were not avoidable transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). We agree with the bankruptcy court and the district court that the trustee did not satisfy his burden of showing that TCFC received a greater amount by virtue of the payments than it would have received in a hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation. TCFC was one of Smith's primary lenders for almost a decade. TCFC's loans were secured by a first priority floating lien on the prime inventory and the proceeds from it.1 Thus. That lien was junior to the prime collateral liens of Smith's other secured creditors. 13137 Smith's. The Bank advanced new funds to Smith's if sufficient collateral was available. The case was converted to a chapter 2 Because of these procedures. Which we will describe below. Were not made directly from the proceeds of the sales of TCFC's collateral. 13138 7 liquidation and Batlan was appointed as trustee. Believing that the payments were preferential. That the trustee had failed to meet his burden of proof in showing that the payments were preferential transfers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1990_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court granted summary judgment for 2 No. 05 1990 Ohio Gear because the action was commenced after a contractual one year limitations period had expired. Was unable to comply with the new expert witness discovery deadline and moved the court for an extension of time to produce its experts for deposition. Ohio Gear's experts were not deposed and Deere's deadline to respond to Ohio Gear's summary judgment motion came and went without a response. This was an abuse of discretion. The relevant terms included on Deere's purchase order were: 2. Such acceptance is expressly made confidential [sic] on Vendors [sic] assent to the terms of this Order. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="428"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/012053P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 1 BACKGROUND National Cart is a manufacturer of. Shopping cart corrals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1225.htm">98-1225 -- FISCHER IMAGING CORP. V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. -- 08/03/1999<BR></A><BR>
The units are used in a medical imaging product produced by GE. Parties may
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/014185u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
MLC contends that there was no sale of the schedules and argues that rent continued to accrue. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. The debtors in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding are Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation and related entities. Were not described in the master lease. Following negotiations and correspondence that will be described more fully hereafter. There was no written contract commemorating the parties' agreement. What Tenet got for its $1.35 million is the subject of dispute. Tenet was the real party in interest defending against the motion to the extent it sought rent for the period after the asset purchase.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411931.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That HGI was entitled to accrued lost profits but no future lost profits caused by the breach. That HGI was entitled to punitive damages due to the knowingly fraudulent actions Wetmore undertook when forming and later breaching those contracts. HGI is a reseller of computer software and hardware that purchases software in the secondary market because the costs of obtaining software through authorized 2 distribution channels are prohibitive. Has worked for HGI since 1993 and is responsible for all of HGI's acquisition and distribution of software. Wetmore was an authorized replicator (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0013n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether the claimed defects were covered under Damon's warranty. The length of time the motor home was out of service for repairs. It will be necessary to reverse the dismissal of his MMWA and MCPA claims. The RV was accompanied by a limited warranty from Damon. Under which Damon warrants that this recreational vehicle . . . will be free from defects in material and workmanship attributable to Damon for a period of one (1) year or 12. In the event that a defect in materials or workmanship is found to exist. Damon will provide for the repair or replacement of such defective material(s) or workmanship at no charge. . . . Damon's obligation to repair or replace defective materials is the sole obligation of Damon under this Limited Warranty. 2 J.A. at 53 (Damon Warranty). The RV was under warranty from September 13. Summary judgment is appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0042p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case involves state and federal claims for breach of express and implied warranties on a 2002 Damon Intruder Motor Home (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1605.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Goldfarb with whom Katz & Goldfarb was on brief for appellee. After the purchase was complete he embarked on the voyage home only to discover she was structurally unsound. (How plaintiff thought insurance could be so readily obtained is one of the mysteries in this case.). It was agreed that the closing would not take place in plaintiff's absence. Consulting engineers later determined that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/003484P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The parties' security agreement indicated that Debtor's home address was in Arkansas. MBCC's interest was perfected for purposes of Arkansas law. We conclude the bankruptcy court correctly determined MBCC's interest was perfected for purposes of Arkansas law. Code Ann. § 4 9 103(2) (Supp. 1999) (where goods are covered by certificate of title issued under statute of another jurisdiction under law of which security interest must be indicated on certificate as condition of perfection perfection of security interest is governed by law of jurisdiction issuing certificate of title. Law continues to govern until goods are registered in another jurisdiction). The security interest was not perfected because the truck was never registered in Arkansas. The issue involved in this appeal is the perfection of MBCC's security interest. Vehicle registrations and certificates of title are governed by separate statutes and serve distinct purposes: purpose of registration requirements is identification and revenue while purpose of requiring that lien be noted on title certificate for perfection is to provide notice of encumbrance to potential purchasers or creditors).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="411"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1811p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was engaged in the landscaping and nursery businesses. Varsity executed financing statements and granted the Bank a lien on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-5087.htm">03-5087 -- STILL WATER NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO. V. CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT -- 09/13/2004<BR></A><BR>
The term of the lease was nine months and included a purchase option. <p> In February 1999. This document was superseded by a second assignment executed in June 1999. <u>Id.</u> at 630 33. No financing statement was filed. <p> Pursuant to the assignment of the lease. The Subject Equipment was included in the equipment that Preussag returned to Sabre's equipment yard. <p> On March 8. The demand required Sabre to purchase the Subject Equipment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/993593P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This tort action was brought by Oriental Trading Co. After judgment was entered on a jury verdict in favor of OTC. I. Sam Firetti and Bing Ran are residents of Virginia who were directors. OTC is a Nebraska corporation that sells goods made in Asia through its catalogs. The goods were to be made in China and delivered to OTC in Nebraska. United States Customs Service (Customs) duties were not mentioned in the contracts. After the contracts were signed. United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 2 1 Customs was contemplating imposition of anti dumping duties on pencils made in certain Chinese factories. An anti dumping duty is a special duty placed on goods to prevent importation of large quantities of the item into the United States. There was evidence at trial from which the jury could find that Firetti suggested that Global now become the importer of record because it could switch factories and lower the cost of anti dumping duties to OTC and that he represented that Global would deal directly with Customs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2244.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Spelling of last name of appellant's counsel should be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0304p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spectrum was sold to Stargate Defense Systems Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="361"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept95/94-4017.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The relevant facts underlying this litigation are undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows. The case was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding on April 30. Christiansen was contractually obligated to the owner of the project to deliver the project free of mechanics liens. We agree with the parties that no material fact disputes exist and that we are called upon to review only legal issues. 2 under which a defendant may assert a counterclaim against a plaintiff
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="361"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1619.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Carroll and Blish & Cavanagh were on brief. Snow & Hahn were on brief. Baccarat is a subsidiary of Compagnie des Cristalleries de Baccarat. It is the exclusive distributor in the United States of this aristocratic product line. Is generated through catalog and telemarketing sales. L.L.C. are all named plaintiffs herein. For simplicity's sake we refer to them collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1693.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mahoney and Miller were on brief for appellees. All Trawl is a Massachusetts commercial fishing corporation which owns the Corey Pride and Anderson is All Trawl's president. James Corey is identified in Southworth's complaint as either an agent or principal of All Trawl. Shortly after the engine was installed on the vessel by a Southworth employee. A fire broke out on the Corey Pride while it was out at sea on a fishing expedition. Claiming that the fire was caused by defective engine parts and faulty installation. An additional claim for negligence was later asserted at trial. Southworth's claims against Anderson and James Corey were dismissed without objection prior to trial. James Corey was out of the case altogether and Anderson continued only as a counterclaimant. The remaining claims were tried in December 1990 before a magistrate judge by consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C. 636(c). The magistrate judge found that the fire was caused by a defective makeshift oil pressure line connected to the engine and installed by Southworth's agent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE9DB4596784BC4F88256A6F0081F41D/$file/9955851.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2 1 There are four consolidated appeals involving Debtors FTD and JDI. In an unpublished memorandum filed concurrently with this opinion. 2 Defendants' transactions were primarily with FTD. We refer only to FTD unless otherwise noted. 7680 alleging that collateral notes and trust deeds (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/24131F4B4D48DA4D88256E5A00707BA3/$file/9955851.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2 1 There are four consolidated appeals involving Debtors FTD and JDI. In an unpublished memorandum filed concurrently with this opinion. 2 Defendants' transactions were primarily with FTD. We refer only to FTD unless otherwise noted. 7680 alleging that collateral notes and trust deeds (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1020p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are Settlement Classes Cognizable Under Rule 23? 50 E. Are the Rule 23(a) and (b) Findings Required for Settlement Classes? IS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PROPER HERE? 69 A. Were There Adequate Findings Under Rule 23(a)? 69 B. Could the Class Requisites Have Been Met On The Current Record? 70 1. Is the Settlement Fair. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approving the settlement of a large class action following its certification of a so called settlement class. The class members are purchasers. It was subsequently determined. May have had a design defect in their location of the fuel tank. Many of the class members are individual owners (i.e. While others are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2089.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Salvadore</U> were on brief. P.C.</U> were on brief. Zippo is a Pennsylvania corporation. Zippo inquired whether Theta was interested in using Zippo as a distributor of Jadco's specialty advertising products. No written agreement was finalized and discussions ceased. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1554.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1997 is amended as follows: Page 9. Coco and Palmer & Dodge LLP were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee. Background The facts of the case are not in dispute. Two areof particular relevance: 1 Orders were placed in March. No terms which are in any manner additional to or different from those herein set forth shall become a part of. Written and/or typed on our purchase order is especially important to us. We will assume that you have agreed to the specified terms and that you will fulfill your obligations according to our purchase order. We will change your invoice and pay your invoice according to our purchase order. Elmwood prepared and sent an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034231p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying the motion of Appellant NBT Bank. At issue is a claim by NBT under Article 4 of Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3242_030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For 12 years TACT Medical was the exclusive distributor in Japan of medical devices made by Biomet Orthopedics. It agreed provided that the goods were delivered to it in Japan. Was shipped to O'Hare Airport in Chicago where it sits to this day in a customs warehouse. A jury concluded that: (1) TACT had exerted best efforts and is not liable to Biomet. (2) Biomet was required by the contract to repurchase the inventory on TACT's request. Was commercially unreasonable and excused Biomet from the obligation to repurchase the inventory. Both sides have appealed. The district judge allowed the jury to decide whether the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2178.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cashman and Gelerman & Cashman were on brief for appellant. With whom Diviacchi Law Office was on brief for appellee. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The first five manholes were delivered to the Perdoni job site by CSI on July 2. The remaining 116 manholes were delivered intermittently in twenty six shipments extending over the next thirteen months and invoiced by individual shipment. A common point of leakage is the area where the sewer lines enter the manhole structure. Is necessary to ensure the integrity of the manhole. The pipe openings in the sides of the manholes were misshapen and the seals between the boot and rim of the openings were not watertight. 2 federal district court on April 25. Trial was held before a magistrate judge. The implied warranty claims were tried to a jury. While the Chapter 93A claim was tried to the presiding magistrate judge. It was not until after the close of all the evidence that CSI first moved for judgment as a matter of law on the implied warranty claims relating to 108 of the 121 manholes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct96/95-4444.opa.html">BANCO GENERAL RUNINAHUI V. CITIBANK INT'L<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Banco General Runinahui v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> <i>Commercial Letter of Credit</i><p> <p> The commercial letter of credit is a payment device often used in international trade which permits a buyer in a transaction to substitute its financial integrity with that of a stable credit source. The letter of credit is only one of three distinct relationships between three different parties: (1) the underlying contract for the purchase and sale of goods between the buyer (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="309"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct96/95-4444.opa.html">BANCO GENERAL RUNINAHUI V. CITIBANK INT'L<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Banco General Runinahui v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> <i>Commercial Letter of Credit</i><p> <p> The commercial letter of credit is a payment device often used in international trade which permits a buyer in a transaction to substitute its financial integrity with that of a stable credit source. The letter of credit is only one of three distinct relationships between three different parties: (1) the underlying contract for the purchase and sale of goods between the buyer (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-3000a.htm">00-3000A -- COMMERCE BANK V. CHRYSLER REALTY CORP. -- 03/22/2001<BR></A><BR>
The first sentence of the opinion is corrected to read as follows: <p> Plaintiff appellee Commerce Bank. N.A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-3000.htm">00-3000 -- COMMERCE BANK V. CHRYSLER REALTY CORP. -- 03/22/2001<BR></A><BR>
Vacate the award of punitive damages and remand. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4339.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 365(c)(2) (11 U.S.C. §365(c)(2)) is one: a debtor may not assume
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1134.html">THE TORRINGTON CO. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep08/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10505-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10455-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10722-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1460.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because substantial evidence supports the Commission's conclusion that all or substantially all of SKF USA's bearings are not predictably and consistently accompanied by post sale services and its consequent conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion between SKF USA's goods and the gray market goods. Inc. is a manufacturer of ball bearings located in the United States. It produces SKF marked bearings in the United States and also imports SKF marked bearings that are manufactured abroad by SKF Manufacturing Units. SKF USA and SKF Manufacturing Units are owned by the same parent company. Distributors to which SKF USA sells but with whom SKF USA does not have an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="288"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-5216.htm">97-5216 -- BOYD ROSENE AND ASSOCIATES INC. V. KANSAS MUNICIPAL GAS AGENCY -- 04/13/1999<BR></A><BR>
936 was inappropriate. The district court's award of attorney's fees is <strong>Reversed</strong>.<strong></strong> <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="288"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-6213.htm">01-6213 -- GIBSON V. ARNOLD -- 05/01/2002<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="288"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061010np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant commenced this action claiming that she was injured by an unreasonably dangerous fire extinguisher manufactured and distributed by Appellee.1 Appellant advanced five claims against Appellee: (1) negligent manufacture. Appellee leased 21 extinguishers to Honeywell and delivered them the day before The basis of subject matter jurisdiction in this case is diversity of citizenship. Where they were stored overnight. The storage room was locked at the end of that day and unlocked the following morning. The temperature in the storage room was average room temperature. While the remainder were of a different size. Although there is no evidence in the record as what method. Was used to fasten the extinguishers in place or any evidence concerning the nature of the terrain over which the handcart moved. The distance between the storage room and the Boneyard was 150 yards. When it was her turn. CO2 leaked from a compression fitting where Appellant was holding the device with her left hand.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="288"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/004063P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nordyne argues that the District Court erred in holding that a forum selection clause on the reverse side of ICM's invoices was enforceable. ICM would forward a Customer Service Invoice with the following printed immediately below the heading:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="279"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031793p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiff is Kirk Brisbin. Was acquired by defendant Harsco Corporation in the fall of 1998. Judgment ultimately was entered in favor of Specialty in the amount of $746. The result was two separate contracts in May 1998.2 The first was for the sale of brass valves (hereinafter referred to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="272"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1588.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Nicholas Mesiti and Brett M. Of counsel was William A. On the brief were James M. With him on the brief was S. Of counsel was Goutam Patnaik. Deere alleged that Deere forage harvesters that had been manufactured solely for sale in Europe (the European version forage harvesters) were being imported into the United States. Deere argued that the European version forage harvesters were materially different from the forage harvesters manufactured and authorized for sale in the United States (the North American version forage harvesters). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6). We will not overturn the ITC's factual findings if they are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Lanham Act. 04 1588 3 Many of the goods that are forbidden from importation under section 1337 are what are referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIyNjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2264-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are unlicensed street vendors of clothing painted with grafitti. (2) its conclusion that remand is unnecessary to determine whether § 20 453 is a reasonable time. Because we hold that New York City's licensing requirement is a valid. We conclude that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033101p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are satisfied that. Is entitled to recover both the collateral (an aircraft engine) and the proceeds. This conclusion is also supported: (1) by the language of the controlling agreements between Tower and FINOVA. We will therefore affirm the order of the District Court. The agreements specified that insurance proceeds of the engines were part of FINOVA's collateral.1 Tower also covenanted to maintain insurance on the aircraft. The engine at issue in this appeal was severely damaged in an in flight accident. The cross collateralization was created in page 2 of the Aircraft Mortgage. As 49 U.S.C. § 44107 is such a statute. Its UCC filings in New York were unnecessary. 503.26 was directly attributable to the accident. Was appointed Chapter 7 trustee. The engine was returned to FINOVA. Some of FINOVA's other collateral was apparently destroyed or impaired by Tower. There is no dispute that the engine was returned in fully repaired condition. FINOVA contends that the total value of all returned collateral was some $36 million.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0002p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Decedent was over eighty years old and became interested in planning his estate so that Spendthrift would continue after his death. Retained exclusive control over the private placement: All sales are subject to the discretion of the Sellers including the right to accept each unit as purchased or none until the entire offering is purchased. INSURING CLAUSE If during the policy period any claim or claims are made against the Insured (as herinafter defined) or any of them for a Wrongful Act (as hereinafter defined) while acting in their individual or collective capacities as Directors or Officers. The Insurer will pay on behalf of the Insureds or any of them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0364p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The checks were drawn on the accounts of several clients of John Hancock. Were made payable to John Hancock. Were entrusted to Sherman to invest. The claims against Old Kent were based on common law conversion. Old Kent argues that the district court erroneously decided that the bank's forgery defense was without merit and that the district court failed to address the bank's contention that the Michigan Tort Reform Act's comparative fault scheme applied to UCC conversion claims. Factual background Sherman was a representative of John Hancock in Michigan. Sherman was authorized to accept these checks on behalf of John Hancock. Approximately 71 checks were so indorsed and deposited over a period of seven years. Sherman was able to cover up his embezzlements by generating false accounting statements for his defrauded clients. The scheme was finally uncovered in March of 2000. Old Kent did not dispute John Hancock's factual allegations or that the bank was partially at fault. Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="263"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1136.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Allen & Snyder were on brief for appellees. Was fraudulently induced to discharge six consignments of frozen scallops. The discharged scallops were seized by appellees Fleet National Bank and Cooper ative Centrale Raiffeisen Boerenleenbank B.A. (hereinafter. Glouces 1An order bill of lading is a negotiable instrument. Issued by the carrier to the shipper at the time goods are loaded aboard ship. As documentary evidence of title to those goods.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="260"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1463_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The thieving co defendants were stealing merchandise from Home Depot and similar retailers and then returning the items to the stores for cash refunds. Provided the thieves with another outlet for the merchandise they were stealing. Both described themselves as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="260"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AAEB4F1BB780D3ED8825718000726DA6/$file/0455354.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued the case and were on the briefs for the appellants/cross appellees. Argued the case and was on the briefs for the appellees/cross appellants. Were on the briefs for amicus curiae California Board of Equalization. We hold that an importer of goods destined for domestic consumption is not exempt from state excise taxes and administrative searches by federal Customs officials simply because it stores its merchandise in a foreign trade zone. Was licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol. The term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041015np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2002 for further proceedings as follows: The District Court should address on remand whether economic loss alone is ever recoverable under the strict liability of New Jersey and. Whether the causal nexus between the defect and the alleged losses here is too attenuated to permit recovery in strict liability here. Where the 2 U.C.C. does not apply and the damage is not to the defective product itself but rather a breach of the duty not to put the defective product into the stream of commerce. The District Court concluded
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0413p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argues that there are genuine issues of fact to be decided and asserts that: (1) under Michigan law the application of the economic loss doctrine is limited to suits by aggrieved buyers against non performing sellers. (2) it has stated a claim for fraud in the inducement which is an exception to the economic loss doctrine. (3) it was denied adequate discovery due to the appellees' conduct. (4) the torts of intentional interference with existing contractual rights and interference with prospective economic advantage are exceptions to the economic loss doctrine. The compasses were to be installed by Digico. Dinsmore admits that Digico was a party to the contractual arrangement regarding Bombardier's purchase of compass sensors from Dinsmore:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1308.html">INTERGRAPH CORP V. INTEL CORP<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel on the brief were <U>David Vance Lucas</U>. With him on the brief was <U>Joel M. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Peter . Intel is a manufacturer of high performance computer microprocessors. The microprocessors are sold to producers of various computer based devices. Who adapt and integrate the microprocessors into products that are designed and sold for particular uses. These producers are called original equipment manufacturers. Intergraph Corporation is an OEM. Sells computer workstations that are used in producing computer aided graphics. From 1987 to 1993 Intergraph's workstations were based on a high performance microprocessor developed by the Fairchild division of National Semiconductor. Embodying what is called the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053646np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the Order of the District Court.1 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 I. Michelle Williams was employed as an assistant in the payroll department of Cerberus Pyrotronics. Williams admitted that she had defrauded Siemens and was terminated. KPMG notified Siemens of its discovery that Williams had cashed all of the fraudulent checks at one of two local branches of PNC Bank and that the same teller had handled all 639 of the transactions.3 Cerberus was purchased by Siemens following the events giving rise to this litigation. As the parties have done in brief. We will refer to Williams's employer as Siemens throughout this Memorandum. Was not a customer of PNC. Had the discretion to cash noncustomer checks when she had reason to believe they were backed by sufficient funds. PNC was unable to locate. Was otherwise unaware of. Though PNC claims that Tanner's dismissal was prompted by the discovery of a $5.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="254"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1554.html">ENERCON GMBH V. USITC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1209.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Gregory Husisian. With her on the brief were Stephan E. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. With him on the brief were Richard O. BACKGROUND Enriched uranium fuel rods are used by the utility industry to generate nuclear power. LEU is used to fabricate uranium rods. Many utilities in the United States contract to buy uranium from a third party seller and then contract to have that uranium enriched by a uranium enricher. Those determinations focused on two main issues: (1) whether SWU contracts were contracts for the sale of goods and not services and. (2) whether domestic utilities or foreign enrichers were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002373.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Inc. has been manufacturing and distributing commercial electronic security control systems since 1967.1 Its devices are designed to track the physical location of goods and are sold to retailers to prevent merchandise theft. It is one of the two dominant manufacturers in the retail security products market. Which is registered with the United States Trademark office.2 1. Our recitation of the facts will be brief. Its principal and most successful products are electronic article surveillance systems designed to alert retailers when items are removed from confined areas. The systems work by placing circuited tags on merchandise which are deactivated at the time of sale. If the tags are not deactivated. Checkpoint Systems also manufactures electronic access control systems in the form of security cards that permit selected personnel to have access to restricted areas. Checkpoint Systems intends to use these electronic access control systems to make
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021364.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was correct. The mark is registered in Monaco. Are five companies formed and controlled by a French national. Included in this roster are 53 web sites whose domain addresses incorporate some portion of the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200305/02-1039a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="242"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0291p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that: (1) even if the privately owned Complex were treated as if it The Honorab le Marianne O. No. 01 3434 were owned by the state. (2) the restrictions on UCC's access were reasonable. The Complex is owned by a private entity. ANALYSIS The district court declined to decide whether Gateway was a state actor. Holding that even if it were. There are three types of fora: (1) the traditional public forum. UCC argues that the Gateway Sidewalk is a traditional public forum. That the Commons are designated public fora. 1. Because the Supreme Court has explained that from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="240"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3263.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
INTRODUCTION Jerome Foote was convicted in United States District Court for the District of Kansas of trafficking in counterfeit goods and conspiring to traffic in counterfeit goods based on his sale of a single counterfeit Mont Blanc pen in violation of the Counterfeit Trademark Act. BACKGROUND Foote was charged in the district court with forty four counts of counterfeiting. FBI Special Agent Albert Pisterzi was one recipient of a mailing promoting Foote's business. Pisterzi went to Foote's home and <hr> observed that Foote was selling goods from which the original tags had been removed and replaced with tags bearing various famous trademarks. Went to Foote's home and determined that at least some of the goods sold by Foote were counterfeit. Foote told Smith during the visit that the items were the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="237"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0022p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Rogers would affirm the summary judgment against plaintiffs who have purchased indirectly from defendant. Judge Katz would find that all violations of the Act are properly analyzed under §§ 2(d) and (e) and not § 2(a). Summary judgment is therefore REVERSED on Count I as to all plaintiffs and on Count II as to those plaintiffs who purchase directly from defendant and AFFIRMED on Count II as to those plaintiffs who do not purchase directly from defendant. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Holding that eight out of ten of the plaintiff vendors did not have standing because they did not purchase cigarettes directly from Philip Morris. No plaintiffs proved that they were in competition with the other retailers. That the remaining plaintiffs who have standing are in competition with the other retailers.2 I. The Robinson Patman Act The Robinson Patman Act was passed in 1936 as an amendment to the Clayton Act.3 The Clayton Act is an antitrust law that primarily protected against
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3254.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Provides that the rights of an assignee of an account debtor
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964871.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Mike Kazinec were all convicted of conspiracy to transport or receive stolen goods. Actually was a largescale fence who bought stolen OTC and HBA from a number of shoplifters and smalltime fences. There was evidence that only four of the defendants. Actually knew that his OTC and HBA was stolen. The government proceeded on the dubious theory that the defendants were deliberately ignorant to the true source of Thomas's OTC and HBA because Thomas's operation was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1414.html">GAMUT TRADING CO., ET AL, V. USITC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <U>Lloyd W. With her on the brief were <U>Lynn M. Of counsel<A NAME=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1448.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that Arguss failed to pay the commission on the sales. (1) This order is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> The case was tried to a jury. Arguss is a telecommunications contractor. Arguss contracted with a predecessor of AT&T Broadband (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/93F56C8A93FD98A988256BA30011FF9D/$file/0115470.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Panatronic USA and Lemar Textile Co. are AT&T long distance subscribers who were assessed the UCC fee. Panatronic and Lemar sought class certification to pursue the claims on behalf of business subscribers who were assessed the UCC fee during the period January 1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Every long distance carrier is required to file a tariff with the FCC listing its schedule of charges and the terms and conditions of each class of service. 47 U.S.C. § 203. Once a tariff is approved by the FCC. It carries the force of law and is binding on both the carrier and the subscriber. Which are individually negotiated service contracts. Which is a basic long distance service for residential customers. Which is a basic long distance service for business customers. Which is a sophisticated voice and data network requiring multi year. Carriers are authorized. The plaintiffs' central allegation here is that AT&T assessed the UCC fee in a discriminatory manner. Were assessed a 4.9% UCC fee. Were assessed a flat UCC fee of $0.93 per month.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051881p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This matter is before the Court on Armstrong Worldwide Industries. AWI's creditors were divided into eleven classes. AWI's equity interest holders were placed into a twelfth class. Relevant to this appeal are Class 6. The only member of Class 12 is Armstrong Worldwide. Which is in turn wholly owned by Armstrong Holdings. Have interests senior to those of Class 12. All three are impaired classes because their claims or interests would be altered by the Plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1124. All impaired unsecured creditor classes were required to approve the Plan under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(8). Then the Plan could only be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06b0005p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court's order is AFFIRMED. The bankruptcy court's order denying relief from the automatic stay is a final. The order confirming the Debtor's chapter 13 plan over Tidewater's objection is also a final order for purposes of appeal. 469 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1998). 2 Because the parties to this appeal have stipulated to the facts underlying this dispute. A bankruptcy court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. FACTS The underlying facts are undisputed. The vehicle was the collateral that secured the Debtor's obligation under the Contract. The Contract was subsequently assigned to Tidewater and its security interest was duly perfected. The accelerated balance owed pursuant to the Contract as of the filing of the chapter 13 petition was $10. The Debtor proposed a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1381.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Carter and McKool Smith were on brief for appellants David C. Madoff and Cohn & Kelakos LLP were on brief for appellee. Senior Circuit Judge. appeal is whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by approving a settlement between the chapter 7 trustee for Healthco International. Three months later an interim trustee was appointed and the reorganization was converted to a chapter 7 liquidation. By the time the chapter 7 trustee (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B0C93358B88F28D88256FD90056994B/$file/0455962.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Defendant Michael Kremer was dissatisfied with the hair restoration services provided to him by the Bosley Medical BOSLEY MEDICAL INSTITUTE v. Was uncomplimentary of the Bosley Medical Institute. The problem is that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1206.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.L.L.C. were on brief. Plumb & Murray were on brief. Reasoning that the Union's claim failed to satisfy the Lanham Act's jurisdictional requirements because (1) the parties were not competing for the sale of commercial services. (2) Winship's admittedly unauthorized use of the mark was in connection with services offered by the markholder rather than services offered by the infringer. Is also a plaintiff. Two affiliates of Winship (Hillhaven Corp. and First Healthcare Corp.) are codefendants. The difference between the two types of marks is not relevant here. Thus we will apply case law involving either form. Is also postdated. Urges the reader to vote against unionization and warns that union membership will bring significant financial burdens. Accompanies this listing:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1230.html">TRANS-BORDER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5301a.html">ISKCON OF POTOMAC V. RIDENOUR JAMES M.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="221"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94babbitt.html">BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. DYNASCAN CORP. BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. IT BECAME KNOWN TO THE PARTIES THAT COUNTERFEIT COBRA PRODUCTS WERE ENTERING THE LATIN AMERICA MARKET. BABBIT REQUESTED THAT DYNASCAN CONTACT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN LATIN AMERICA ABOUT THE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BECAUSE BABBIT'S SALES WERE BEING AFFECTED BY THE COUNTERFEIT MARKET. THIS WAS NOT TRUE. DYNASCAN STATES THAT BY VIRTUE OF ITS USE OF THE COBRA TRADEMARK IN SOUTH AMERICA. DYNASCAN'S TRADEMARK IN THOSE COUNTRIES IS PROTECTED. THE COURT SEEKS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE LAW IS WITH REGARD TO TRADEMARKS IN EACH OF THE FOUR COUNTRIES. THE LAW AS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDER WILL BE THE LAW APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ISSUES ON THE MERITS.[1] AT THE HEARING THE COURT HEARD FROM TWO EXPERT WITNESSES AS TO THE STATE OF TRADEMARK LAW IN THE FOUR COUNTRIES AT ISSUE. THE BRAZILIAN PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. THE CRITICAL LEGISLATION REGULATING TRADEMARKS IN BRAZIL IS THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CODE."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="221"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/94babbitt.html">BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. DYNASCAN CORP. BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. IT BECAME KNOWN TO THE PARTIES THAT COUNTERFEIT COBRA PRODUCTS WERE ENTERING THE LATIN AMERICA MARKET. BABBIT REQUESTED THAT DYNASCAN CONTACT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN LATIN AMERICA ABOUT THE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BECAUSE BABBIT'S SALES WERE BEING AFFECTED BY THE COUNTERFEIT MARKET. THIS WAS NOT TRUE. DYNASCAN STATES THAT BY VIRTUE OF ITS USE OF THE COBRA TRADEMARK IN SOUTH AMERICA. DYNASCAN'S TRADEMARK IN THOSE COUNTRIES IS PROTECTED. THE COURT SEEKS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE LAW IS WITH REGARD TO TRADEMARKS IN EACH OF THE FOUR COUNTRIES. THE LAW AS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDER WILL BE THE LAW APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ISSUES ON THE MERITS.[1] AT THE HEARING THE COURT HEARD FROM TWO EXPERT WITNESSES AS TO THE STATE OF TRADEMARK LAW IN THE FOUR COUNTRIES AT ISSUE. THE BRAZILIAN PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. THE CRITICAL LEGISLATION REGULATING TRADEMARKS IN BRAZIL IS THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CODE."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="221"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1925p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a trademark action brought by Iberia Foods against Rolando Romeo. Because the Mistolin products sold by Rol Rom are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/041643P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Douglas is a wholesale grocery. Douglas's account was credited with only $24. Had quit in late 1999 and it was unable to find an immediate replacement. By the time a new controller was hired there was a three month backlog. CNB's employee testified she sent the request through the Federal Reserve hoping it would not notice it was untimely. CNB's president testified the information should have been verified. The adjustment request was received by Wells Fargo. Adjustment requests are handled by regional adjustment centers. When the request was received in Houston it was forwarded to Wells Fargo's Southwestern Adjustment Center (SAC) in Phoenix. There were occasions when USA's Wells Fargo account had sufficient funds to cover the discrepancy. The funds were transferred out of the account and there were no longer any funds to pay the adjustment request. As these events were unfolding. USA was sliding into insolvency. The parties agree Houston would have paid the additional $216. SAC notified CNB 4 there were no funds in the account and denied the adjustment request.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043543np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case is an appeal from the District Court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff. We will affirm the decision of the District Court. I. Factual Background and Procedural History As the facts are well known to the parties. The certificate was unexpectedly discovered in one of several books The actual identity of the issuer is in dispute and was not decided by the District Court. 2 1 Griffith had purchased from an unnamed individual. The District Court found that Griffith was not a holder in due course because he did not take the certificate for value. Griffith paid only for the books in which the certificate was discovered. Since Griffith is a mere holder. Mellon's argument that the certificate has been paid is a complete defense. 13 PA. STAT. § 3602 (a) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1572.html">NITRO LEISURE PRODUCTS, L.L.C V. ACHUSNET<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Ryan M. Patch</u> and <u>Paul Kim</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Mark G. Will and Emery. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Joseph P. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="214"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041196np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Still argues that no amendment to his pleading was necessary because his complaint already stated a sufficient claim for relief under Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/993873.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claims on the ground that they were barred by the statute of limitations and (2) an order entered February 9. We will affirm the orders entered by the district court. Was an automobile dealership franchise selling and servicing Jeep and Eagle vehicles. 2 Frank Cuda. Cuda had been involved in the automobile industry since he was a child. Northview was a successful dealership consistently ranking as one of the top one hundred American Motors dealerships in the nation. There was testimony that Chrysler acquired American Motors in the summer of 1987 but even if this is so our result would be the same as that we reach. 3 Advertising Association. This Agreement will terminate automatically without notice from either party on: . . . (vi) the failure of DEALER to fully conduct its Dealership Operations for seven (7) consecutive business days . . . Northview presented evidence that it continuously was unable to obtain desired vehicles from Chrysler to sell to the public and was unable to fill a fleet order for Alamo Rent A Car.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/961257P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 All of the crops grown at the station are acres at the Southwest station to tenants who contribute a share of handled at on site facilities. Nelson purchased a dryer unit manufactured by a subsidiary of Chief Industries from a local The dryer was essentially a gas powered heater and One component of fan unit that the University attached to a concrete slab on the exterior of an existing grain drying structure. the unit was an electronic solenoid valve that stops the flow of fuel to the unit when the air in the dryer reached a certain temperature. The solenoid was manufactured by a predecessor of Parker Hannafin. A fire damaged the structure to which the unit 2 was attached. The district court concluded that the University was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="208"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EDA7E49995BC06D888256A15005FA185/$file/9855160.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine when a service mark is first used in commerce under the Lanham Act. We conclude that Pac Tel's first use of the mark was even earlier than that found by the district court. April 1990 was the first time LACOE began using the system on a non test basis. When the system was publicly launched. Pac Tel was developing customers among various vehicle fleet operating enterprises and had agreements with at least twenty four of them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="208"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034700p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine what role likelihood of confusion plays in a trademark infringement case where the defendant claims that its use was nominative and fair. LT contends that its use was nominative and fair.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="208"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E34876CC8ACB973F88256E5A00707AA1/$file/9855160.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine when a service mark is first used in commerce under the Lanham Act. We conclude that Pac Tel's first use of the mark was even earlier than that found by the district court. April 1990 was the first time LACOE began using the system on a non test basis. When the system was publicly launched. Pac Tel was developing customers among various vehicle fleet operating enterprises and had agreements with at least twenty four of them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="208"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034700p5.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine what role likelihood of confusion plays in a trademark infringement case where the defendant claims that its use was nominative and fair. LT contends that its use was nominative and fair.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033388p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/044013P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The facts critical to this appeal are relatively straightforward. Which was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Gloria Bedwell. It was there he met his co defendant Joiner. Who was serving a 115month sentence as the result of escape and felon in possession convictions. Was to draw attention to what they believed were the injustices of federal mandatory minimum sentences and allegedly illegally enacted federal criminal statutes. They claimed Williamson was prosecuted illegally and demanded compensation in the amount of $25. Williamson alone was charged in a second count of corruptly endeavoring to intimidate a federal prosecutor in the discharge of her official duties. He testified Joiner informed him their objective was to wreck the alleged debtors' credit and to take their houses. There was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for corruptly endeavoring to intimidate a judicial officer in the discharge of her official duties. The defendants argue credit is not property within the meaning of § 372.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May19/03-60348-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Tunica casino boat was to be constructed on site. The Biloxi boat named the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May18/03-60348-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Tunica casino boat was to be constructed on site. The Biloxi boat named the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="205"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0387p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an interlocutory appeal of an injunction granted in a trademark case. They disagree as to whether the mark extends to cover three dimensional objects where two dimensions of those objects have the same general shape (but not the same exact proportions) as the drawing in the registration papers. The parties also dispute whether the mark is valid and whether it has been infringed. Plaintiff Appellee Gibson Guitar Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/992616P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before the Court on appeal from the District of Minnesota. Was defined by the UCC. The District Court held that the terms of the UCC
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/012197P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Acted negligently in depositing these checks because the checks lacked proper endorsements or were made payable to entities other than the ones into whose accounts they were deposited. We are bound by the decisions of the relevant state's highest court. We are bound to apply the rule of decision that we believe the state's highest court would apply. While it is true. That City of Wellston is not technically controlling because it emanates from an 2 intermediate court. We are obliged to follow the decisions of state intermediate courts when they provide the best evidence of what the state's law is. The Supreme Court of Missouri would come to a different conclusion if the issue in this case (and that one) were to come before it. Who was not authorized to do so. It is plain. That the Supreme Court of Missouri would not hold that all common law actions of negligence by a bank in connection with its handling of checks are preempted by the UCC. Allegiant and Royal argue that Dalton & Marberry is inapposite because in that case the bank was both payee and drawee whereas in the instant case the banks are merely depositary banks.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/97-7211a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Mark L. With him on the brief was Laurie B. Because of its importance to local commerce and because there is no decision by the highest court in the District of Columbia precisely on point. We have decided to certify it to that court. We agree that such dismissal was improper and rein state these two claims contingent on a positive response by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to the question certified here. DeBerry that this grant was improper and accordingly reinstate the claim. DeBerry is a citizen of the District of Columbia. First Government is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland. Code s 28 3904 is entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/022833P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. This case is before us for the second time. Marvin is a family owned company that manufactures. The genesis of this lawsuit was Marvin's use. Marvin had used Penta products successfully for years until environmental concerns were raised about the active ingredient. The four month jury trial was bifurcated. The jury found that PPG had given Marvin a warranty of future performance and that such warranty formed part of the basis of the bargain between the parties and was incorporated into their agreement. The jury found the warranty was breached and awarded damages: $53.6 million for out of pocket costs. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0221p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the District Court that there is no likelihood of confusion
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/01-17032.opn.htmly">UNITED STATES V. SAUNDERS (1/23/2003, NO. 01-17032)<BR></A><BR>
Sharon's specific role was to assist in applying for and obtaining documents for the vehicles in three Georgia counties. Knowing they were stolen and had altered and fraudulent identification numbers. She was driving one of the stolen vehicles. Which was licensed in her name. Her signature was found on the bills of sale for at least twenty seven vehicles and she accompanied her husband in transporting some of them for delivery to their purchasers. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/01-17032.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. SAUNDERS (1/23/2003, NO. 01-17032)<BR></A><BR>
Sharon's specific role was to assist in applying for and obtaining documents for the vehicles in three Georgia counties. Knowing they were stolen and had altered and fraudulent identification numbers. She was driving one of the stolen vehicles. Which was licensed in her name. Her signature was found on the bills of sale for at least twenty seven vehicles and she accompanied her husband in transporting some of them for delivery to their purchasers. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/01-17032.opn.htmly">UNITED STATES V. SAUNDERS (1/23/2003, NO. 01-17032)<BR></A><BR>
Sharon's specific role was to assist in applying for and obtaining documents for the vehicles in three Georgia counties. Knowing they were stolen and had altered and fraudulent identification numbers. She was driving one of the stolen vehicles. Which was licensed in her name. Her signature was found on the bills of sale for at least twenty seven vehicles and she accompanied her husband in transporting some of them for delivery to their purchasers. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/01-17032.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. SAUNDERS (1/23/2003, NO. 01-17032)<BR></A><BR>
Sharon's specific role was to assist in applying for and obtaining documents for the vehicles in three Georgia counties. Knowing they were stolen and had altered and fraudulent identification numbers. She was driving one of the stolen vehicles. Which was licensed in her name. Her signature was found on the bills of sale for at least twenty seven vehicles and she accompanied her husband in transporting some of them for delivery to their purchasers. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1359.html">NSK LTD. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117032.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will refer to Mrs. Sharon's specific role was to assist in applying for and obtaining documents for the vehicles in three Georgia counties. Knowing they were stolen and had altered and fraudulent identification numbers. She was driving one of the stolen vehicles. Which was licensed in her name. Her signature was found on the bills of sale for at least twenty seven vehicles and she accompanied her husband in transporting some of them for delivery to their purchasers. The district court determined that: [Sharon] was in the business. She possessed one or more of these trailers and was in the business of selling them after they had been stolen by her husband. She was an integral part of that procedure. A direct number of these would not have gone through. Noting that the sentence would have been at the high end of the guidelines range had the two level enhancement not been applied.2 Sharon timely appealed. The evidence would have been insufficient to prove that Sharon had received the vehicles or that she was in the business of fencing stolen property.3 2 Without the enhancement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/987203.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was in good faith as a matter of law. The four principals are LIM's only employees and Feinstein's employees at Corporate Consultants perform LIM's clerical and bookkeeping work. This transaction was its first sale.1 Through the end of 1995. Is significant because on that the date AT&T announced the creation of LTI to the public through a huge media campaign. LTI's Adoption and Use of the Name and Mark LUCENT LTI is the telecommunication and technology business spun off from AT&T in 1996. LIM amended the application after this suit was filed to claim the September 5. At the same time the law was revised to provide that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="199"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5495555B0A4675E7882571C6007C1725/$file/0416174.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case centers on the trademarks of two well known automobile manufacturers Volkswagen and Audi.1 The question is whether the Lanham Act prevents a maker of automobile accessories from selling. The logos and marks of Volkswagen and Audi are aesthetic functional elements of the product that is. They are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/255AA369960F70BC88256FEE00575223/$file/0335375.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Few subjects have generated more ink and consternation in the trademark arena in recent years than the topic of parallel imports/gray market goods. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-6036a.htm">99-6036 -- U.S. V. GILES -- 05/19/2000<BR></A><BR>
A revised opinion is attached. <p> Entered for the Court <p> PATRICK FISHER. We are asked to determine whether an individual who traffics in trademarks which are not attached to any goods or services violates the federal criminal trademark infringement statute. The items at issue in this case are wholesale
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-6036.htm">99-6036 -- U.S. V. GILES -- 05/19/2000<BR></A><BR>
We are asked to determine whether an individual who traffics in trademarks which are not attached to any goods or services violates the federal criminal trademark infringement statute. The items at issue in this case are wholesale
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/98-4186.man.html">HENRY LEE CO. V. TOLZ (10/15/1998, NO. 98-4186)<BR></A><BR>
The writ of garnishment was obtained within 90 days of the debtor's filing a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Because the writ was obtained within the 90 day presumptive period of insolvency. Henry Lee maintained that this lien gave it priority because under Florida law a judgment creditor obtains priority by delivering the writ of execution to the sheriff for the county where the property is located. The district court held that Tolz was entitled to recover the funds because under the Florida Uniform Commercial Code a trustee in bankruptcy. Certain transactions are explicitly excluded from the UCC's perfection requirements. Excluded from these rules are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3875.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is our only source of 2 No. 03 3875 facts. Stamped each check PAY TO THE ORDER OF UNION PLANTERS BANK FOR DEPOSIT ONLY LINCOLN FIDELITY ESCROW ACCOUNT 074014213 0001266190 The number at the bottom is not Smith's. Bank account number (anyway his account is in another bank). Thus the check was not endorsed by the payee. The money was transferred to that account from the plaintiff's bank account when Union Planters Bank presented the plaintiff's check to her bank for payment. Was then checked out from Lincoln Fidelity's account to various of the schemers. No. 03 3875 3 The plaintiff's theories of the bank's liability are two: conversion and negligence. Obviously an endorsement signed not by the payee but instead by the person to whom the check is endorsed is ineffective to transfer rights over the check from the payee to the endorsee and thus to the bank in which the endorsee deposits the check. So Union Planters Bank was not a holder in due course of the money when it arrived and was deposited in the bank.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/98-4186.man.html">HENRY LEE CO. V. TOLZ (10/15/1998, NO. 98-4186)<BR></A><BR>
The writ of garnishment was obtained within 90 days of the debtor's filing a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Because the writ was obtained within the 90 day presumptive period of insolvency. Henry Lee maintained that this lien gave it priority because under Florida law a judgment creditor obtains priority by delivering the writ of execution to the sheriff for the county where the property is located. The district court held that Tolz was entitled to recover the funds because under the Florida Uniform Commercial Code a trustee in bankruptcy. Certain transactions are explicitly excluded from the UCC's perfection requirements. Excluded from these rules are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3362.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Defendant Appellant Galen Renee Beach was convicted of two counts of mail fraud and one count of making a false claim on his bankruptcy petition. Beach challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. R. 32.1. <hr> each of the three counts on which he was convicted. Beach's social security number was reversed exactly. Beach's social security number was reversed with the exception of one number. The clerk's office soon discovered that the social security numbers were incorrect and contacted the Beaches to alert them to the deficiency in their filing. Who was responsible for gathering the Beaches' non exempt property for liquidation and distribution to their creditors. This letter was the beginning of a series of letters. Included in the trial record are letters from the Beaches to Mr. Morris that he is failing to comply with their demands.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1203.html">MITA V. US<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5390a.html">CONSARC CORP V. IRAQI MNSTRY INDUST<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1502.html">AIMCOR V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-10872.man.html">PLANETARY MOTION, INC. V. TECHPLOSION, INC. (8/16/2001, NO. 00-10872)<BR></A><BR>
Both of which accompanied the release.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-10872.man.html">PLANETARY MOTION, INC. V. TECHPLOSION, INC. (8/16/2001, NO. 00-10872)<BR></A><BR>
Both of which accompanied the release.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="195"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024046p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Daffy's is a chain of retail clothing stores specializing in selling popular brands of goods and apparel at discount prices. Inc. was recognized as a reputable supplier. The events leading to the purchase began when a representative of Sara's approached Daffy's regarding some Gucci handbags that were being diverted to the United States from a merchant in the Far East. Although Daffy's representatives were confident that the bags were genuine. A Daffy's employee presented one of the bags to the Gucci clerk and informed the clerk that she had received the bag as a gift 3 and was not certain of its authenticity. The employee asked the clerk to examine the bag and confirm that it was genuine. Informed the Daffy's employee that the bag was authentic. That conclusion was based on certain indicia of authenticity including the quality of fabric and leather. Daffy's also sent one of the bags it had purchased that was damaged to the Gucci repair center in New York for repair. Daffy's concluded that the bags it had purchased from Sara's were genuine Gucci bags.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="195"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1756.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sultan</U> were on brief. Was on brief. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1096.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Curtis W. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Karen P. With him on the brief were Matthew W. Of counsel was Angie M. Also of counsel were Will E. Ltd. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/022786P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seven of the ten contracts were entered into by Barry Holden on behalf of Holden Farms. The other three contracts were entered into by the remaining plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and Hog Slat agree that all of the contracts were fully integrated agreements. Five of the ten total contracts contained a choice of law clause stating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952725.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is whether an unperfected security interest in interpleaded funds is entitled to priority over a competing federal tax lien. The district court held that the We affirm. federal tax lien is entitled to priority. I. BACKGROUND The facts in this appeal are essentially undisputed. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0021p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The decision was made early on not to structure the business as a franchise because franchising would require too much on site monitoring of individual franchisees' operations. Tumblebus Inc. does not have a complete list of all persons who have purchased retrofitted buses. Informed Pate that two other persons were already operating in Lexington. Where Tumblebus Inc. was based. That she was confident in her customers' loyalty to Tumblebus Inc.1 In January 2002. Reminding Pate that she was not supposed to be operating in that area. Pate explained that she was having difficulty in obtaining customers in Elizabethtown and the surrounding areas. So the five [written agreements with geographic restrictions that were produced during discovery] were the five [she] had in writing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012227.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These orders were entered after the court discovered RMST's plans to sell some of the artifacts and confirmed that the court's earlier orders prohibiting the sale of artifacts
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7EF5B069AA425BC38825730D00579E8C/$file/0515170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Perfect 10 alleges that numerous websites based in several countries have stolen its proprietary images. The Visa and MasterCard entities are associations of member banks that issue credit cards to consumers. FDC's stated reason for the termination is that the percentage of Perfect 10's customers who later disputed the charges attributed to them (the chargeback rate) exceeded contractual limits. Perfect 10 claims these chargeback rates were temporarily and substantially inflated because Perfect 10 was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-14368.opn.html">DAVIDOFF & CIE V. PLD INT'L CORP. (8/28/2001, NO. 00-14368)<BR></A><BR>
Subsequent sales of the product by others do not constitute infringement even though such sales are not authorized by the trademark owner. Because we conclude that the resold products in the instant case are materially different. Is the manufacturer of DAVIDOFF COOL WATER fragrance products and owns the U.S. trademark. PLD International Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-14368.opn.html">DAVIDOFF & CIE V. PLD INT'L CORP. (8/28/2001, NO. 00-14368)<BR></A><BR>
Subsequent sales of the product by others do not constitute infringement even though such sales are not authorized by the trademark owner. Because we conclude that the resold products in the instant case are materially different. Is the manufacturer of DAVIDOFF COOL WATER fragrance products and owns the U.S. trademark. PLD International Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Peabody & Brown were on briefs. Kohler Co. were on briefs. This is an appeal from the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants Kohler Company and Robern. There were two basic claims before the trial court: that the Falling Water faucet
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/95-1411.htm">95-1411 -- SPORTS RACING SERVICES, INC. V. SPORTS CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, INC. -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR>
SCCA is a nonprofit organization that organizes and sanctions amateur sports car racing events for twenty three classes of sports cars. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982774.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dutch Miller's financial personnel represented that 14.75 percent was the best interest rate available. The total cost of financing the vehicle at this rate was $9. It is undisputed that FMCC was not a party to this agreement. Dutch Miller was paid the difference (known generally as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-2725.opa.html">LITTON INDUS. AUTOMATION SYS. V. NATIONWIDE POWER CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Litton Indus. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The issue in this appeal is whether an unperfected security interest in interpleaded funds is entitled to priority over a competing federal tax lien. The district court held that the federal tax lien is entitled to priority. BACKGROUND<p> <p> The facts in this appeal are essentially undisputed. From which it was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The real parties in interest are Highlander International Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-2725.opa.html">LITTON INDUS. AUTOMATION SYS. V. NATIONWIDE POWER CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Litton Indus. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The issue in this appeal is whether an unperfected security interest in interpleaded funds is entitled to priority over a competing federal tax lien. The district court held that the federal tax lien is entitled to priority. BACKGROUND<p> <p> The facts in this appeal are essentially undisputed. From which it was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The real parties in interest are Highlander International Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/051357P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding that American Express was not liable to Watson under Missouri's Uniform Fiduciaries Law (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/982164.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether the affirmative defenses of setoff. This appeal raises a question as to whether the creditor whose affirmative defenses were extinguished by the Bankruptcy sale received constitutionally adequate notice such that failure to object would result in a waiver of its affirmative defenses and its deemed consent to the transformation of the debtors' contract claims into unimpeachable accounts receivable. Were not extinguished by the Bankruptcy sale. Was constitutionally inadequate. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Folger acquired substantially all of the assets of three bankrupt companies through a bankruptcy auction
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031279.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After ensuring that Tidewater Finance's security interest in the vehicle was adequately protected in the bankruptcy plan. Because we find that Moffett's right to redeem the vehicle under Virginia law was part of her bankruptcy estate. The automobile was Moffett's only means of traveling the forty miles from her home to her workplace at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Tidewater Finance claimed that Moffett did not have any interests in the car other than bare legal title and an intangible right of redemption. The bankruptcy court properly required Tidewater Finance to 4 IN RE: MOFFETT turn over the repossessed vehicle once it was adequately protected in the reorganization plan. Or lease under the Bankruptcy Code is required to turn over or account for the property. Courts must ensure that the party's interest in the property is adequately protected. The central question here is whether Tidewater Finance and the repossessed vehicle are subject to these automatic stay and turnover provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022116.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was managed by Keith Pasqua. His combined losses were $40. The Stipulation was subsequently filed with the CFTC. The 1 It appears that Danny sought an apology because Pasqua called him
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014368.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Subsequent sales of the product by others do not constitute infringement even though such sales are not authorized by the trademark owner. Because we conclude that the resold products in the instant case are materially different. Is the manufacturer of DAVIDOFF COOL WATER fragrance products and owns the U.S. trademark. PLD International Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96058D191C528691882571AF007F7F09/$file/0455874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
GMP cross appeals the district court's determination that it is engaged in unauthorized sublicensing. That Appellants are barred by the doctrine of laches from taking legal action now. Based on undisputed evidence establishing that they should have known of GMP's allegedly infringing activities well beyond the statutory period for bringing suit. 1454 (9th Cir. 1985) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1007.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Grossman</U> was on brief for Preston Trucking Company. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-6236.htm">99-6236 -- FALCON BELTING INC. V. RTP CO. -- 11/07/2000<BR></A><BR>
Holding that Falcon's tort claims were barred under Minnesota's economic loss statute. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/977685.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 97 7685 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which was imposed after his conviction for possession with intent to distribute. Breckenridge argues that he was improperly sentenced as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1412.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Frank A. With him on the brief was Jan M. Of counsel on the brief were David P. The '242 patent is generally directed to compressor bearings for use in turbochargers for diesel locomotive engines. The appeal was submitted after oral argument on March 8. Because the patented compressor and planetary bearings were subject to pre critical date sales that were commercial and not primarily experimental. We agree with the district court that the '242 and '056 patents have been proven invalid as a matter of law under the on sale bar of § 102(b). BACKGROUND EMD's General Design and Testing Procedures EMD is a division of General Motors Corporation focused on the design and production of locomotives. Both types of bearings are embedded in turbochargers. Which are in turn embedded in the engines of locomotives that EMD sells. The purpose of the in house program is to ascertain the durability and reliability of the new bearings. That is. The purpose of this second phase is to verify durability.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9426.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GRIGSBY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court instructed that general intent was all that was required to violate the AECA. Because we conclude that the district court's AECA jury instructions were erroneous and incomplete and that the jury's verdicts as to the other wildlife statutes were contrary to the jury instructions and evidence. That he had never issued export permits for African elephant ivory and was unfamiliar with the process.<p> Ashton transferred the original certificates of ownership for two of the ivory tusks. The Canadian Wildlife Service was satisfied that. Because the harvesting was before applicability of CITES. A Canadian export CITES permit was issued on October 20. Since the check was payable to Grigsby Taxidermy instead of Ashton and exceeded the final sales price. Where the certified check was converted to a Canadian bank draft payable to Ashton in Canadian funds. When the United States funds were converted to Canadian funds.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1816.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DaimlerChrysler timely filed this appeal and raised the following issues: 1) whether the district court erred in applying the doctrine of progressive encroachment to its dilution claim by finding that laches barred the claim even though prior sales of H1 vehicles occurred in a different market than the mainstream SUV market where the H2 is 1 (...continued) the early 1980s and was later released for consumer sales in 1992 as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9426.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GRIGSBY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court instructed that general intent was all that was required to violate the AECA. Because we conclude that the district court's AECA jury instructions were erroneous and incomplete and that the jury's verdicts as to the other wildlife statutes were contrary to the jury instructions and evidence. That he had never issued export permits for African elephant ivory and was unfamiliar with the process.<p> Ashton transferred the original certificates of ownership for two of the ivory tusks. The Canadian Wildlife Service was satisfied that. Because the harvesting was before applicability of CITES. A Canadian export CITES permit was issued on October 20. Since the check was payable to Grigsby Taxidermy instead of Ashton and exceeded the final sales price. Where the certified check was converted to a Canadian bank draft payable to Ashton in Canadian funds. When the United States funds were converted to Canadian funds.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199915021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is evidenced by the division of the Alabama Supreme Court that is reflected in a multitude of separate concurring and dissenting opinions and statements. We are grateful to the Alabama Supreme Court for the valuable guidance that it has provided us both in the decision it issued in this case and also in the other decision it released on the same day in a similar tobacco case where related state law issues had been certified by another panel of this Court. A brief background statement and discussion of some general matters will be helpful. I. BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing a dismissal pursuant to Fed. Those alleged facts are that Carolyn Watts Spain started smoking cigarettes as a teenager in 1962. She became addicted to nicotine early on and was unaware at the time that she was becoming addicted. Smoking was the proximate cause of her lung cancer. Which was diagnosed on August 15. This means that for a period of two years after her death Spain may bring whatever claims his wife could have brought on the date of her death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1097.html">FEDERAL MOGUL CORP. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1922.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lvarez</SPAN> was on brief. P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. 13. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0123p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mistake or deception. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (emphasis added).4 The federal cause of action for dilution is found in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). We hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's dilution claims was improper. Because we hold that Kellogg's infringement claim is not in fact barred by acquiescence. We also hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's bad faith infringement claim was improper. Opining that the cartoon tiger was too whimsical and. 000 of these gas stations were owned and operated by independent distributors (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1095p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that the parties are not entitled to a jury trial under CERCLA. We will vacate the judgment in favor of the buyer and remand for a hearing on the contractual issues. Whose sole shareholder was and is Alex Kaufman.[fn1] Kaufman had worked at the Fords site for over twenty years and served as the president of Grace's chemical division there from 1962 until the sale in 1978. The site was polluted by the manufacturing operations that had been carried on over the years. The proceedings before the district court have been chronicled in a series of published opinions.[fn2] Although unresolved claims between the parties remain (including potential insurance coverage). One of which we find is dispositive of this appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0439p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is unaffiliated with Audi. D'Amato alleges that when he asked if displaying the logos was permissible. Skal was not affiliated with Audi in any way.1 Id. at 650. These items were posted for sale in 2003. Audi already HAS a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/022462P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JAML) following a jury verdict. The majority of heavy duty trucks sold by dealers are manufactured only after a retail customer has solicited and accepted bids from several dealers. This is an industry wide practice. The crux of this case is Reeder's claim that Volvo gave other dealers more favorable price concessions than Volvo granted Reeder. The remaining claims the secondaryline RPA and AFPA claims were tried to a jury. Was the conference's keynote speaker. The featured guest speaker of the 1998 conference was Jon Krakauer. As well as 3 mistakenly receiving faxes from Volvo intended for other dealers which listed larger concessions than Reeder was getting. Reeder came to suspect it was one of the dealers Volvo sought to eliminate. While Reeder's price per truck was $63. It would have realized a gross profit of $30. The price Reeder's customer paid for each truck was $2. Reeder would have realized $52. Reeder would have realized additional profits for its sale.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0795p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants cross appellees are California Smoothie International. We sometimes will refer to CSI and CSLC singularly as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6364.htm">01-6364 -- MAYBERRY V. WARD -- 08/02/2002<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Rayford Mayberry. This showing requires a demonstration
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1538.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee.</FONT></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/812A6DE6572287DB882571CA0049087B/$file/0455844.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Is a summary judgment determination of abandonment appropriate when the record supports an inference that the trademark holder a small. The answer is no. Are sufficient to defeat a claim of abandonment. His business had enjoyed some modest success but later was set back by dwindling prospects. That Mallet's use of the mark while depleting his inventory was neither bona fide nor in the ordinary course of trade. The mark was primarily designed by Mallett's friend Tom Robbins. Sales were promising. His business was building up a reputation for making quality goods. The 1996 inventory order was not depleted until 2002. Mallett was selling backpacks at a steep discount. Although his arrangement with Koko Island was subject to a non competition agreement. Documented sales of Pelican Mark goods were made during this time. Mallett also claims that many other undocumented cash transactions were made as well.1 Although Mallett's enterprise was Mallett declared that he can document sales of Pelican Mark products between 1995 and 2001: 1995.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0740p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/98-7076.htm">98-7076 -- NORTH TEXAS PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION V. MCCURTAIN COUNTY NATIONAL BANK -- 08/15/2000<BR></A><BR>
1994 loan was to enable the Clarks to purchase 1. When a financing statement is filed in McCurtain County. One copy is placed in an alphabetical index. Which is accessible to the public for purposes of conducting lien searches. One copy is placed in a numerical file located in the basement of the clerk's office. The alphabetical index copy in the public records is removed and returned to the secured party. The duplicate numerical copy in the basement is not. <p> NTPCA disputed MCNB's asserted priority in the remaining proceeds from the Clarks' sale of the cattle to Conley and brought the present action seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that it held a lien superior to the lien of MCNB on certain livestock owned by the Clarks. 1995<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510143.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thompkins (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2753.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to reconcile two distinct provisions of the Bankruptcy Code: 11 U.S.C. § 363(f). The lease was never recorded. Substantially all of Qualitech's assets were sold at auction for a credit bid of $180 million to a group of senior pre petition lenders that held the primary mortgage on the Pittsboro property.2 On August 13. All persons and entities holding interests other than those expressly preserved in the Sale Order were barred from asserting those interests against 1 By the time Qualitech's assets were sold at auction. There were more than $380 million in secured claims against Qualitech's estate. The original amount of the mortgage held by these pre petition lenders was $170 million. The outstanding balance on that mortgage was more than $263 million. 2 4 No. 01 2753 the purchaser. With the result that Precision's lease and supply agreement were de facto rejected. Precision filed a diversity suit in the district court contending that New Qualitech was guilty of trespass. New Qualitech in turn asked the district court to refer Precision's complaint which was premised on the notion that Precision retained a possessory interest in the warehouse under the lease to the bankruptcy court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/952260P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Insty*Bit Minnesota. is a Minnesota Background corporation located in Minneapolis. It is undisputed. 946) was subsequently issued on March 21. Poly Tech informed Insty*Bit that it was adding its own brand of quick release drills and accessories. Is whether the record. Shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Where the unresolved issues are primarily legal rather than factual. Summary judgment is Crain v. The trade dress of a product is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4043.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal is the result of certain Utah optometrists' decade long effort to become panel providers for the largest managed health care company in the state. The Plaintiffs The Plaintiffs are forty nine optometrists who practice along Utah's Wasatch Front and their affiliated professional organizations. Have been permitted under Utah law to perform the full scope of non surgical eye care (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3169.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The myriad provisions in the federal criminal code are justified. We are required in this case to determine whether Congress has authority under its power
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0096n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After this objection was overruled by the bankruptcy court. The agreement specified that monthly payments were to be made over a five year term. Claiming in their brief to have been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1186r.html">DELVERDE, SRL AND DELVERDE USA, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Because Commerce s methodology for determining whether Delverde indirectly received countervailable subsidies from the Italian government is inconsistent with § . 292 94.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002414.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the owner of the well known Harrods of London department store. The defendants are 60 Internet domain names (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/801F57B52029863A88257020006E31AD/$file/0216019.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Prohibits United States citizens from investing in and trading with Iran.1 The question we face is whether an American citizen's guarantees of payments that furthered a trade agreement with an Iranian company are covered by the Executive Order and. Whether the guarantees are unenforceable as a result. We conclude that the guarantees were illegal under the Executive Order and. 059 is appended to this opinion in its entirety. All quotations in this account are from the complaint or the guarantees.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032740p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse. Arthur Pelullo is the president and owner of Banner Promotions. Antwun Echols is a professional boxer with a current record of twenty nine wins. If certain conditions were met. The Agreement gave Banner the right to be Echols's sole representative in negotiations with any third parties that were interested in having Echols box on their television networks. Banner's major obligation under the Agreement was to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-6239.wpd.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An understanding of the basic facts of the substantive controversy between the parties is necessary to resolving this appeal. Poll's natural gas gathering system was conveyed to Norwest Bank Minnesota to satisfy the Bank's secured claim. Rimmer's interest was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1196.html">HELIFIX LIMITED V. BLOK-LOK, LTD<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that the 801 patent was invalid by reason of anticipation and the on sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § . That application was a divisional of Application Serial No. 08/491. Which was a continuation in part of Application Serial No. 08/204. The patent is directed to a method of securing layers of masonry (". The typical tie is described as spiral shaped. Impactingly drives the tie and <I>(9) </I>rotatably permits the same to rotate as a helical bed is developed in the first wythe due to penetration by the tie. </P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992093.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 99 2093 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. A problem developed when Mobil became concerned that Earhart was trying to switch Mobil customers to a competitor's brand. Mobil sent a letter to Earhart's customers advising them that Earhart was no longer an authorized seller of Mobil products. At that time Earhart was in possession of Mobil products valued somewhere between $104. The distribution agreement provided that if Earhart was indebted to Mobil at termination. The balance of the inventory was later sold at a deep discount or discarded. That claim was dismissed by stipulation. 3 Section 9.2 of the agreement reads: Any other claim by Distributor of any kind [other than one having to do with defects or shortages]. The district court concluded that genuine issues of fact were in dispute and set the matter for trial. Two of these were in effect summary judgment motions because they argued that Earhart was not entitled to recovery as a matter of law. Required Earhart to give Mobil notice before selling or destroying goods that Mobil was obligated to buy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/9_opinions/91-1125.html">KING INSTRUMENTS V. PEREGO AND TAPEMATIC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1639.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It alleged that a shipment of cigars entrusted 2 Nos. 02 1639 and 02 1741 to Yellow Freight was damaged in transit. That none of the excepted causes under the Carmack Amendment were proven by Yellow Freight. That the damaged cartons were part of the shipment at issue in the case. National Insurance crossappeals the district court's determinations that the date of subrogation rather than the date of delivery of the damaged goods is the date of accrual for prejudgment interest and that prejudgment interest would be simple rather than compound. He noted that some of the cardboard box tops were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1166.html">LUIGI BORMIOLI CORP., INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/023051P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When one payee indorses a check that is payable jointly to two payees. Article 3 of the Arkansas Uniform Commercial Code provides that the bank is liable for conversion to the nonconsenting payee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1220.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 36. Is vacated. The magistrate judge is free to reduce the amount embargoed to the net award plus anticipated costs and interest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/023682P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Provided that these creditors
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/03-6067.htm">03-6067 -- STAR FUEL MARTS V. SAM'S EAST INC. -- 03/19/2004<BR></A><BR>
(2) Sam's sales to its members were not made with the intent and purpose of inducing the purchase of other merchandise or of unfairly diverting trade from a competitor. The member price is five cents per gallon lower than the price for nonmembers. Ninety percent of the gas sold at the Memorial Store is to members. Sam's sells only unleaded and premium gasoline. <p> The district court found that Sam's gasoline operations were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/96-7035.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The primary issue in this appeal is whether § 5 116(2) of the Uniform Commercial Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6329.htm">97-6329 -- U.S. V. BOOS -- 01/14/1999<BR></A><BR>
Gunwall both were convicted of one count of conspiracy to impede and injure officers of the United States from discharging the lawful duties of their offices. (3) he was selectively and vindictively prosecuted. (4) a $9000 fine imposed by the district court was inconsistent with his ability to pay. Gunwall appeals his convictions on four separate grounds: (1) he was vindictively prosecuted. (2) the district court should have excluded evidence of his affiliation with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/96-7035.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The primary issue in this appeal is whether § 5 116(2) of the Uniform Commercial Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EDB288C254B386D6882572DF00003A7A/$file/0530590.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is secured to them. At issue in this appeal is whether the Government's basis for maintaining a CCTA prosecution against the Smiskins their alleged failure to comply with the State of Washington's requirement that individuals give notice to state officials prior to transporting unstamped cigarettes within the State violated the Right to Travel provision of the Yakama Treaty. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Background Defendants Kato and Harry Smiskin are members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/033977p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the denial of preliminary relief in a trademark infringement action. Because the denial of the preliminary injunction was premised on legal errors. The following facts are undisputed. It advised Andrx to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1795p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that the federal securities claim of one of the investors is barred by the statute of limitations. We disagree with the district court's disposition of the federal securities claim and conclude that the investors have proffered sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to (1) whether the law firm made a statement containing a material omission upon which the investors relied. Even when the lawyer did not sign or endorse the document and the investor is therefore unaware of the lawyer's role in the fraud.1 We will reverse the judgment of 1. We later set forth the following specific requirements to hold such a lawyer liable: (1) the lawyer knows (or is reckless in not knowing) that 3 the district court insofar as it granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment on the federal securities claim as to three of the four investors. We will reverse the judgment of the district court on the investors' common law fraud claim. Which claim was timely as to all four investors.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992313.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We are called upon to decide whether the United States Tax Court erred in finding the taxpayers liable for deficiencies. We hold that the tax court's finding that the taxpayers are liable for accuracy related penalties under I.R.C. § 6662 is not clearly erroneous. Pridgen 1 Roberts was deceased at the time of the hearing before the tax court. Gaskins were entitled to innocent spouse relief for the taxable years in question under I.R.C. § 6013(e). Roberts was responsible for the day to day operations and management of Beaufort Leaf. Pridgen was assessed a deficiency of $129. Pridgen was assessed a deficiency of $232. Gaskins was assessed a deficiency of $131. Gaskins was assessed a deficiency of $240. 004 was also assessed against Gaskins for the 1991 taxable year. The deficiencies were determined based upon adjustments to each taxpayer's distributive share of Beaufort Leaf's net income for each taxable year. 2 4 PRIDGEN v. INTERNAL REVENUE The marketing of tobacco is regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-4126.man.html">CARNIVAL BRAND SEAFOOD CO. V. CARNIVAL BRANDS (9/3/1999, NO. 98-4126)<BR></A><BR>
Hi Seas executed the Hi Seas Assignment.</P> <P> Defendant CBI is a New Orleans. Louisiana company that is engaged in the business of selling prepared Creole or Cajun type food products. These products are available in grocery stores for retail purchase. Summary judgment was due to be granted only if the forecast of evidence before the district court showed that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party. Was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A plaintiff must show (1) that its mark has priority and (2) that the defendant's mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. <EM>Lone Star Steakhouse &. Any priority that CBSC claims over CBI with respect to the CARNIVAL mark must have been derived from one of CBSC's predecessors in interest. <EM>Cf. N. 3 (1998) (explaining that an assignee of a trademark steps into the shoes of the assignor and that a company may
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-4126.man.html">CARNIVAL BRAND SEAFOOD CO. V. CARNIVAL BRANDS (9/3/1999, NO. 98-4126)<BR></A><BR>
Hi Seas executed the Hi Seas Assignment.</P> <P> Defendant CBI is a New Orleans. Louisiana company that is engaged in the business of selling prepared Creole or Cajun type food products. These products are available in grocery stores for retail purchase. Summary judgment was due to be granted only if the forecast of evidence before the district court showed that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party. Was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A plaintiff must show (1) that its mark has priority and (2) that the defendant's mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. <EM>Lone Star Steakhouse &. Any priority that CBSC claims over CBI with respect to the CARNIVAL mark must have been derived from one of CBSC's predecessors in interest. <EM>Cf. N. 3 (1998) (explaining that an assignee of a trademark steps into the shoes of the assignor and that a company may
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1372.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Arguing the district court erred in granting summary judgment and that the peddling ordinance is unconstitutional. Finding that the ordinance 2 No. 02 1372 is not a proper time. Manner restriction and is an impermissible prior restraint on free speech. As is evident from the title. Weinberg is no stranger to selling his wares outside the United Center and its forerunner. Explaining that he was in violation of the City's peddling ordinance. Then Weinberg sought and obtained a temporary restraining order which permitted him to resume book sales outside the United Center and the parties agreed to have the case transferred to a magistrate judge. Is not a reasonable time. Is void for vagueness. Each of these is addressed in turn.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984731.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Robert Ruhe was tried and convicted of conspiring to transport stolen property in interstate commerce and aiding and abetting the transportation of stolen property in interstate commerce. Ruhe asserts that illegally seized evidence was improperly used. That the evidence was insufficient to convict him. After such parts were mutilated they were sold as steel scrap. These parts were designated by placing red tags on them. 2 Sometime around 1993 or 1994 Byard began stealing aircraft parts from the scrap cage and selling them to Ruhe. The main trial issue was whether Ruhe knew that these parts were stolen. Byard never told Ruhe that he was stealing the parts. That Ruhe had to know that they were stolen. Ruhe maintained that Byard never told him that they were stolen. For over one year Byard once a week or once a month would bring parts to Ruhe's businesses or his residence (which is located directly next to his businesses). The aircraft industry apparently has a pedigree system whereby aircraft parts are accompanied by documentation indicating their source and usage.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1447.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 50. Delete the sentence that starts with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992253.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994). Was an infringement of American FireEagle's common law trademark rights. E One was infringing AFE's rights. AFE was infringing E One's rights. The issue was ultimately submitted to a jury. Arguing (1) that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because we agree that certain of the district court's instructions to the jury were inadequate. E One is a fire and rescue truck manufacturer located in Ocala. The purchase price for American Eagle was $6.5 million. Though only $1.6 million was attributed to the company's tangible assets. The balance was attributed to good will. Although the trucks were built according to American Eagle blueprints and in keeping with American Eagle style. The Gainesville plant was closed shortly after June 1992. Those components (assuming they were serviceable) would be installed on a new or rebuilt chassis. By mid 1992 E One was no longer manufacturing any new fire trucks under the AMERICAN EAGLE brand.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/006110P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The cash price for the truck was $27. The rate of interest specified in the contract was 18% per annum. Which were considered as part of the claim. Coors is a liquor distributor which does business as R.C. Distributing and is referred to as such in some of the relevant agreements and the parties' pleadings. Coors and Ross Perry have the same principals and owners and many of the same shareholders. The agreement was later assigned to Coors. Ross Perry is crossed out as the seller and R.C. Distributing is hand written in. Indicating that perhaps this transaction was a direct sale. The assignments which took place in August 1996 and May 1997 are. They look more like intercompany transactions. 2 2 1 Debtors acknowledged that Coors was an oversecured creditor. Because Coors was not the seller nor a licensed sales finance company. Debtors maintained that Coors could not legally charge 18% interest and was thus barred from collecting any interest at all. Debtors sought to have Coors' claim reduced to the principal balance due on the debt at the date of filing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991209.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
South Carolina's economic loss rule provides that where a buyer's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product does not work properly. The buyer's remedies are limited to those prescribed by the law of contract. This doctrine demarcates the boundary between contract and tort in product liability cases by helping to determine which theories are applicable in a given action. Its contours and rationale have been carefully explained by Judge Traxler in Myrtle Beach Pipeline Corp. v. Whose injuries are traditionally remedied by the law of torts. We would nonetheless reject it. 3 A contract involving the delivery of both goods and services is classified as a sale of goods governed by the U.C.C. where its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1598.html">BAYER AG AND BAYER CORPORATION V. HOUSEY<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Rudolf E. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Rolf O. Summerfield</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>M. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Laura W. 007 for failure to state a claim.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because we conclude that infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) is limited to physical goods that were manufactured and does not include information generated by a patented process. Because the physical goods here (drug products) were not manufactured by a process claimed in the asserted patents. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/995422.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have fostered the mistaken impression that Smirnoff vodka is made in Russia and is the same product that was produced in Russia and sold to the czar before the Russian Revolution. Holding that the plaintiffs had failed to present a case or controversy that was ripe for decision within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution and that. Even if the plaintiffs' claims were ripe. Perhaps the greatest recognition he received was being named the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/033151p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Either that (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2000/987181.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both of which are appellees. The principal issue on appeal is whether LRSC's failure to obtain a stay of the order has rendered its appeal moot. LRSC is the landlord of a shopping center in Lawrence Township. One is a Burlington Coat Factory. Another is an Acme supermarket. The third was formerly operated by Rickel. Rickel is the successor in interest to Channel Companies. (2) that LRSC may terminate the Lease upon an assignment or sublease of more than 80 percent of the premises by the 3 tenant to any non successor entity:1 The original term of the Lease was for fifteen years with three five year options to renew. One option was exercised by Channel on January 29. 1996 although the Lease was apparently in default at that time. The relevant language is as follows:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/992007P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were given as security for the loan. The Clarins began to have trouble making payments in September 1996. Clarin's car was about to be towed from the company parking lot.5 Ms. Claims to have no documentation of the arrangement. This factual dispute has no bearing on our resolution of this case since it is undisputed that the Clarins failed to comply with the terms of the loan agreement. 5 4 Ms. Two men employed by Minnesota Repossessors were preparing it for towing. She did not further protest the repossession and the car was towed. The district court found that there was no breach of the peace under the UCC. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was not violated. Clarin's oral protests was a breach of the peace violating the UCC. They argue that Minnesota Repossessors did not have the right to possess the Clarins's car because of the breach of the peace causing a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.6 Minnesota Repossessors made a motion to supplement the record. Note that the supplemental information is not relevant to our decision. 3 6 II.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/026009P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court1 dated February 6. Was prior to the subordinated lien of the Appellant. GECC commenced an adversary proceeding against the Trustee seeking a declaration from the bankruptcy court that its lien was superior to the lien granted to Class 3 by the Plan. The parties filed a joint stipulation of material facts and informed the bankruptcy court that an evidentiary hearing was not needed. The bankruptcy court issued an order holding that the Trustee's lien was subordinated to GECC's lien by the terms of the Plan. We also review de novo the bankruptcy court's determination that the plan was unambiguous. If the plan was ambiguous. They added a sentence to section 9 403(2) that made it clear that a junior creditor who filed its financing statement before the lapse will move up in priority. All references to Article 9 are prior to revision. D. Minn. 1985) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1139.html">SKF USA V. INA WALZLAGER SCHAEFFLER<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief was Herbert C. With her on the brief was David M. Of counsel on the brief were Stephen J. Of counsel was Myles S. With him on the brief was Terence P. Of counsel on the brief were Geert M. SKF GmbH is a manufacturer and exporter of AFBs in Germany. Inc. is a United States importer of German AFBs (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2671.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hahn LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. This is a case of first impression for this circuit on several issues under the Lanham Act. Was chartered in 1990 by the Rhode Island legislature as the workers' compensation insurer of last resort in the state.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1209o.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Gregory Husisian. With her on the brief were Stephan E. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. With him on the brief were Richard O. With him on the brief was David Hartquist. The Ninth Circuit had vacated a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012025.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. It is undisputed that the agreement between Bonds and Young provided that at the closing of the sale on November 7. Were to be redeemed by BDI. The redemption was seller financed. The Stock Purchase Note was secured by an agreement under which BDI granted Bonds a security interest in all of its assets. UCC 1 financing statements were prepared and signed at the closing. These financing statements were filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State and at the Office of the Register of Deeds for Cabarrus County. The document was accepted and filed by the Secretary. The lone bid at the sale was made by Bonds. An involuntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code was filed against BDI. An order for relief was entered in the bankruptcy court and Bruce Magers was named as Trustee. This new address was placed on the County filing by Mills and forwarded to Young's attorney for inclusion on the State filing. This was never done. 1 IN RE: BONDS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 5 Various motions for summary judgment were filed by the parties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-14973.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000.00 fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-14973.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000.00 fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1210.html">TORRINGTON CO. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1833.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The check was presented to Schwab for deposit by a man who called himself James M. Whom investigators have been unable to track down (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1556.html">FORMER EMPLOYEES OF MARATHON ASHLAND PIPELINE, LLC V. CHAO<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>James L. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Line height:200%'>This is a government appeal from an order of the Court of International Trade.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The trial court directed the Secretary of Labor to certify eight former employees of Marathon Ashland Pipe Line LLC as eligible for statutory benefits that are available to employees who lose their jobs because of competition from imported goods.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Secretary s determination that the former employees were not engaged in the production of crude oil. Line height:200%'>I</p> <p class=MsoBodyText2 style='line height:200%'><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Marathon Ashland Pipe Line is a subsidiary of Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC. Which is a partnership owned by Marathon Oil Company and Ashland Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'>eight former employees worked as gaugers for Marathon Ashland Pipe Line.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In that capacity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043848p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked who owns the founder's surname. We are also asked whether defendants the founder's grandson and his business have engaged in trademark infringement. Because we conclude that plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. Although the personal aspects of this dispute are not material to our resolution of this appeal. The history of the Doebler family businesses is critical to this matter. A case that is now before us for a second time. 4 A. Other family members were involved in the business as well. All three families were represented on Hybrids' board of directors as well. Jones and Camerer are officers. The Partnership's original functions were ultimately split between Partnership. Doebler III had ties to all three entities: he was partnered with his father in the Partnership and remains an owner of the successor LLC. He is co owner of Farmland. He was but no longer is a shareholder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021016.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who are creditors of Hawkspere. Because we conclude that the bulk of the bunker fuel aboard the NOBILITY was not the property of Hawkspere at the time of attachment. I. The facts in this case are largely undisputed but require rather detailed recitation. The company against whom attachment was sought. Hawkspere is not a party to this case and appears to now be defunct. While the NOBILITY was in St. The Sellers shall have a right of lien over the Marine Fuels delivered.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/711AF70C54478F6888256B9100030575/$file/0055147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the exclusive United States distributor of Karl Storz rigid endoscopes. Endoscopes are precision surgical instruments used in many types of minimally invasive surgical and diagnostic procedures. Since these claims are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5169.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. 233 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5097.html">SEABOARD LUMBER COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1457.html">SAARSTAHL AG V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971363.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I Reardon is a small business engaged in space planning. Its primary customer was UMMS. UMMS was engaged in extensive renovations of its hospital complex and on December 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-1251.htm">01-1251 -- U.S. V. SOUSSI -- 12/16/2002<BR></A><BR>
Soussi was born in Benghazi. He is the president and sole employee of Oasis International. This fax was later in Mr. The manufacturer testified the words were not on the fax when he sent it to Mr. Soussi told Dutchmen that Saudi Arabia or Egypt was the final destination of the trailers. Soussi's early correspondence to Dutchmen was written using letterhead with the name Oasis Colorado. Who is the wife of Mr. Mosadak Soussi's businesses were completely separate from Fikri Soussi's Oasis Colorado. <p> Dutchmen prepared an invoice for the trailers and sent it to Fikri Soussi. He identified himself as being with Oasis and said he was the shipper on the bill. The representative form Maersk Line was initially reluctant to discuss the shipment with Mr. After noting Oasis UK was the party to be notified. Soussi was affiliated with Oasis UK. Soussi's questions about the charges were eventually resolved. <p> While the trailers were in La Spezia. One of the documents was an invoice for sale of the trailers by Oasis UK to Zoo Park in Benghazi.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/92-7117.html">CHICKASAW NATION V. OKLAHOMA<BR></A><BR>
It's opinion and order affirming in part and reversing in part is published at 115 S. The case was submitted to the district court upon stipulated facts on cross motions for summary judgment. It does not collect sales taxes on its sales to tribal or non tribal members but is required to pay sales taxes on motor fuel products and beer when it purchases them from its wholesale vendors at said retail locations. Defendants [the State] impose sales taxes on retail purchases of goods made by plaintiff where defendants contend such goods are used for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613677.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was also named as a defendant in this action and appears as a party in the caption of this appeal. That decision is not challenged by Optimum on appeal. Is therefore deemed waived. 1320 n.14 (11th Cir. 2004) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1835p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will grant GMAC's motion and also dismiss Krebs's appeal as moot pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Pennsylvania area and is a party to three sales and service franchise agreements. Half of that amount was paid upon the execution of the buy sell agreement. The second half was due upon the occurrence of two events: Chrysler's approval of the transfer as Jeep Eagle franchisor and the favorable resolution of any protests filed under state law by Krebs's competitors. Valley then amended its motion to 3 further assert that assumption was in the best interest of the bankruptcy estate and satisfied the requirements of the business judgment rule. The motion stated that the sale was conditioned upon Chrysler's and the other franchisors' approval. Charapp also expressed his reservations about the suggested sale because he had learned that Valley's Dodge franchise was soon to expire. That Dodge was unwilling to extend the term. The court allowed Charapp to withdraw his offer and then held an auction on the three franchises
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984036.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Third Year Law Student
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991837.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Pitt was permanently paralyzed from the chest down. Pritt was wearing a safety harness and a rope lanyard manufactured by Elk River. If the snaphook is not securely snapped over the rope. The case was later removed to federal court and proceeded to trial against PRITT v. Pritt had prepared his case on the belief that the lanyard used on the day of the accident was a model Z 70 5. Proof of a sale is critical in breach of warranty actions. Clemmons changed his testimony from that given at his deposition and told the jury that the lanyard Pritt had worn at the time of the accident was not a model Z 70 5. Clemmons explained that since his deposition he had had an opportunity to actually measure the harness in question and had realized that his prior identification of the type of lanyard involved was in error. This change in testimony was an obvious setback for Pritt. The motion was denied. May have given an implied warranty to the plaintiff. That its lanyard was fit for the ordinary purpose for which such lanyards are used.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1431.html">U.S. V. HITACHI AMERICA, LTD.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was David M. With him on the brief was Yoav M. Of counsel was Stuart M. With him on the brief were David G. Which would have authorized far higher penalties than mere negligent non reporting or false reporting. It is clear. Was not shown here. The appeal and the two cross appeals were submitted for our decision following oral argument on January 4. Which were imported into the United States pursuant to a contract its subsidiary HAL had with the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/99-8021.htm">99-8021 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 12/29/1999<BR></A><BR>
Brown was convicted on two counts of violating 36 C.F.R.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/014008U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The JSA provided that any jointly owned tools could not be transferred without the consent of both parties and were to be maintained by Premier. It is undisputed that after signing the JSA. Infinity argues that it was forced to make these purchases because Premier initially was incapable of manufacturing the quantity and quality of parts that Infinity's customers required. Infinity alleges that Premier was not only aware of these purchases. The names of Premier and Prodesign were used interchangeably. Premier was effectively merged into Prodesign.2 The former president of Premier. Infinity learned that Prodesign was using the tools that had been updated by its engineer to manufacture parts for Prodesign's other customers. The remainder of this opinion will refer to Premier for all pre bill of sale conduct and to Prodesign for all post bill of sale conduct. 3 2 Infinity objected to Prodesign's use of the tools. 775) and notified Prodesign that it was not to use the tools to manufacture parts for other customers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5212a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5212a.html">U.S. V. MICROSOFT<BR></A><BR>
Holley argued the causes for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003318.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue is whether plaintiffs should have obtained a stay under S 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code before appealing an assumption and an assignment under S 365. This appeal arises from the District Court's affirmance of the Bankruptcy Court's order approving the assumption of eight physician employment contracts by the Chapter 11 Trustee of a bankrupt health care system and their assignment to another hospital.1 Contending their employment contracts were not assignable. Our review of its decision is plenary. The other plaintiffs are Bonnie K. The defendants appellees are AHERF 's Chapter 11 trustee and the Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance along with Allegheny General Hospital. 3. The acquisition of a nonprofit corporation's membership interest is comparable to the purchase of stock in a business. AHERF was the sole member of its affiliates and the sale of its memberships interests to the Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance effected a complete change of control. 5. AUHS is substituted for MCP HU in their contracts. 5 contesting Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance's financial viability.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI1MjctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2527-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court held that Cubatabaco's COHIBA mark was sufficiently famous in the United States by the time General Cigar. Began selling COHIBA cigars in the United States that the mark was entitled to protection. We hold that even were the famous marks doctrine to be recognized an issue we do not decide here Cubatabaco is barred by the United States' embargo in force against Cuba from acquiring property rights in United States trademarks via the famous marks doctrine. The Cuban COHIBA mark was sufficiently well known in the United States that it deserved protection under the so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-5729.man.html">POLO RALPH LAUREN, L.P. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING & CONSTR. CO. (6/21/2000, NO. 98-5729)<BR></A><BR>
An owner of goods lost at sea has against the carrier when the owner of the goods is not a named party to the bill of lading. We also address the novel issue of what cause of action is afforded under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The container containing Polo's cargo was lost overboard in rough seas. The district court granted the motion as to the contract claim on the ground that Polo did not have standing because it was not named in the bills of lading. Challenging both the district court's conclusion that COGSA provides an exclusive remedy and that Polo is barred from seeking redress under COGSA.</P> <P><CENTER>II.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-5729.man.html">POLO RALPH LAUREN, L.P. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING & CONSTR. CO. (6/21/2000, NO. 98-5729)<BR></A><BR>
An owner of goods lost at sea has against the carrier when the owner of the goods is not a named party to the bill of lading. We also address the novel issue of what cause of action is afforded under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The container containing Polo's cargo was lost overboard in rough seas. The district court granted the motion as to the contract claim on the ground that Polo did not have standing because it was not named in the bills of lading. Challenging both the district court's conclusion that COGSA provides an exclusive remedy and that Polo is barred from seeking redress under COGSA.</P> <P><CENTER>II.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5086.html">ZACHARIN, ALEXEY T. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <U>Michael J. With her on the brief were <U>David W. Zacharin s asserted patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § . 102(b) because the patented invention was on sale more than one year prior to the filing of the patent application. Which is responsible for developing new armaments for the Army.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1110.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Martin L. Of counsel was Kevin B. With him on the brief was Celeste M. Of counsel was Pia E. This appeal is from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court ruled on summary judgment that the '843 patent was invalid on the ground that the invention was on sale more than one year before the filing of the '843 patent. The district court found that Gemmy had complied with the injunction and there was no reason to alter it. The summary judgment of invalidity is vacated. The preliminary injunction is also vacated. BACKGROUND Gemmy Industries and Chrisha Creations are competitors in the business of holiday decorations. Gemmy's '843 patent is directed to the structure of an inflatable decorative holiday figure. Was filed on January 9. The district court ruled that the patented invention was on sale before the critical date of January 9. Gemmy states that the requirements of the on sale bar were not met. That to establish an on sale bar the challenger must show that before the critical date the invention was both the subject of a commercial offer for sale in this country.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED5DFDC70DDFDEE5882571A3008005FB/$file/0416001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
MCCORD tion of an ex parte temporary restraining order (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0241p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Principally because TGI's use of its mark is in an industry far removed from that of Kellogg. Is the largest producer of breakfast cereal in the world. Toucan Sam is an anthropomorphic cartoon toucan. He is short and stout and walks upright. He is nearly always smiling with a pleasant and cheery demeanor. Kellogg is the holder of five federally registered Toucan Sam marks at issue in this case. The first was registered on August 18. As reproduced below: The second mark was registered March 20. Pointing his left index finger upward: The third mark is for the word mark. This mark was registered on June 18. Is a shaded drawing of Toucan Sam flying. The USPTO was known as the United States Patent Office. Is essentially the same drawing as in the fourth mark. GolfBird is always seen perched upon a golf iron as if it were a tree branch. Her variable body coloring: Together the five registrations indicate that Kellogg's marks are for use in the breakfast cereal industry. TGI is a manufacturer of golf equipment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1163p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On behalf of herself and the uncertified class consisting of all residents of New Jersey who are or have been parties to contracts to rent to own merchandise from Defendant and have been charged illegal fees and/or interest since April 13. This appeal requires us to address whether rent to own agreements which are terminable at any time without additional charges fall under the purview of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). We will affirm its judgment. The agreement is characterized as a rent to own (RTO) agreement. In support of her claim Ortiz alleged that the wholesale price of the furniture was $380.00. Far less than the total amounts in weekly payments required for her to acquire title to the furniture and far less than the amount she had paid at the time she filed the lawsuit.[fn1] She characterizes the difference in the two amounts as a finance charge and based on this characterization contends that the RTO agreement is a credit sale within the meaning of the TILA. That these regulations were entitled to deference.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/022662p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brodie was found guilty by a jury of conspiring to trade with Cuba in violation of the American Cuban embargo currently in place under the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1268.html">TRANSCLEAN CORPORATION, V. BRIDEGWOOD SERVICES<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-4085.htm">01-4085 -- ALLEN V. GENEVA STEEL CO. -- 02/27/2002<BR></A><BR>
Courts have universally held. We are confronted with the question whether it also reaches claims alleging fraud in the retention of a security. BACKGROUND</center> <p> The undisputed facts are set out in the published decision of the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. <em>See Allen v. Were grouped into a . Accompanying his proof of claim was a . The bankruptcy court ruled that: (1) to the extent Allen's claim is based on his bonds. It duplicates the trustee's claim and is therefore disallowed. (2) to the extent it is based on fraud. It is subordinate to the claims of both bondholders and general goods and services creditors. Since it is a claim. 510(b). <p> Geneva later amended its reorganization plan to create a new class of creditors: those whose claims were subordinated pursuant to section 510 of the Code. The order subordinating his claim is a . American and British courts have struggled for more than a century to referee battles between a bankrupt's creditors and its defrauded investors. <em>Id.</em> Early cases in both countries tended to side with the creditors.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972693P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. & Subsidiaries is permissible. I. BACKGROUND The parties have stipulated the relevant facts. Was the parent company of a group of affiliated corporations. The Taxpayer's principal place of business was in Bentonville. The Taxpayer's inventory system is commonly revered as the finest in the retail industry. 2 3 The Honorable David Laro. Kuhn's and Edwards were subsidiaries of the parent and Sam's was a division of the parent. We will use the name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/985434.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the trustee should not have received compensation based 2 on a $7. The trustee argues that the district court's interpretation of S 326(a) was improper and that the determination of a fee award is not limited to the factors enumerated in S 330(a). Cain was subsequently appointed as Chapter 11 trustee. The debtor's principal asset was a parcel of property consisting of two office complexes in Marlton. Which was subject to a mortgage in favor of First Fidelity Bank. It was later appraised at a fair market value of $9. The trustee was awarded interim compensation of $28. The Chapter 11 proceeding was converted into a Chapter 7 proceeding and Mr. Cain was reappointed as Chapter 7 trustee. Although the trustee alleged that he was prepared simply to abandon the property and allow First Fidelity to foreclose on it. Once the administrative expenses were paid. That at a sale
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0191p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
F&D has cross appealed from the district court's decision that neither the joint check rule nor the Uniform Commercial Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/022641P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
American State Bank (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1747.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A.</SPAN> was on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief for the United States Trustee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-5217.man.html">MIRAGE RESORTS V. QUIET NACELLE CORP. (3/24/2000, NO. 98-5217)<BR></A><BR>
Before SunTrust's answer to the writ was due to be filed in district court. Was not entitled. To Mirage.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/962357P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Richard Mansfield (Mansfield).4 At issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling in favor of Mercantile on the Trustee's claims for conversion and postpetition transfer. Only one of these transactions is involved here. While Richard Mansfield and his wife Jenny are appellees in this case. Their failure to file briefs on appeal waived any arguments on their behalf. 24 3 2 facts as relevant to this appeal are as follows. Broadview a wholesale lumber brokerage firm was established in 1905. Broadview's 3 corporate checking account was maintained at SMB. Its financing was provided by Fidelcorp. Fidelcorp was acquired by CIT Group (CIT) sometime before January 1. Broadview was left without funds to support over $400. Broadview was forced to cease operations almost immediately. That amount was refunded to Broadview by check. An involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed against Broadview on November 12. Funds from that account which included other corporate funds transferred into it by Mansfield were used for construction of the Mansfields' home in Carthage.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-5217.man.html">MIRAGE RESORTS V. QUIET NACELLE CORP. (3/24/2000, NO. 98-5217)<BR></A><BR>
Before SunTrust's answer to the writ was due to be filed in district court. Was not entitled. To Mirage.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315283.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Republic of Honduras (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1048.html">VWP OF AMERICA V. US<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel on the brief was Alan Goggins.<p> <p> Saul Davis. With him on the brief were Joseph I. Of counsel on the brief was Chi S. The statute that governs the valuation of imported merchandise for purposes of appraisal by Customs is 19 U.S.C. 1401a.1 Because the Court of International Trade erred in its analysis of the pertinent requirements of 1401a and because it failed to make necessary findings of fact. Customs is required to appraise imported merchandise in the manner set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1401a. The primary method of valuation is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAwMjYtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0026-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was part of this panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024292p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The taxpayer maintains that it was not required to recognize the proceeds from the sale of goods as income in the year it received those proceeds because the funds were subject to a governmental blocking order and. It did not have unfettered discretion as to the funds. Reasoning that the Iraqi Sanctions Regulation then in place which prohibited the taxpayer from selling those goods either was in effect a confiscation or deprived the goods of any market value. One furnace (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011894.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mark Gidley
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyNzZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9276_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The judgment of the District Court is therefore VACATED and the case REMANDED for further consideration. Several issues of New York contract law are peripherally implicated in this case. Some of them are sufficiently important and unsettled that. Is a popular listener demographics data provider for North American radio stations. Were this monthly license fee the only pricing portion of the License Agreement. Were Tralyn or its successor to acquire additional radio stations in the same or adjacent regional markets. Tralyn was required to notify Arbitron so that Arbitron could determine a new license fee. Station agrees that ... if it is or was purchased or controlled by an entity owning or otherwise controlling other radio stations in this Market or an adjacent Market ... Station ... will report the change and the effective date thereof to Arbitron within 30 days of such change.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAwMjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0026-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was part of this panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1592.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Was not present at oral argument. On the ground that CHC III would have underrepresented the seriousness of McMinn's prior criminal conduct and the likelihood of recidivism. McMinn contends that the three affidavits relied upon by the district court for its departure related findings were not reliable.1 First. Mindful that the sentencing court is vested with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1382.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4E3EAF581DA4313288256E5A00707BE0/$file/9957003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In this case we must decide whether a consignor of goods named in a bill of lading has standing to sue the carrier for misdelivery of goods and breach of contract where there is evidence that the consignee. The consignor of goods was a party to the contract evidenced by the bill of lading with full rights to enforce it. FACTS The parties in this case are Lite On Peripherals. Lite On is a subsidiary of Silitek. Is the assignee of Silitek's rights under the bill of lading that is the center of this dispute. Is a company engaged in the business of transporting goods overseas. Reveal Computer Products is a computer manufacturing company located in California and is not a party to the case. Silitek gave Burlington an invoice and a packing list that indicated that the keyboards were to be shipped to Reveal at its offices in California. The goods were consigned to the order of Reveal. Although
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2194.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief for appellee FTP Software. Were on brief. The company announced that sales growth had declined and that it would have lower earnings. The stock price was $8 per share. Plaintiffs' suit was filed on March 3. It was dismissed on September 24. The PSLRA imposes requirements for pleading with particularity that are consistent with this circuit's prior rigorous requirements for pleading fraud with particularity under Fed. Is closer to being a lesser form of intent. This was allegedly done in furtherance of a scheme to inflate revenues by improperly booking contingent transactions as final sales. The complaint was adequate to survive. Plaintiffs appeal saying that summary judgment on the white out allegations was inappropriate. That they are given refuge by Rule 56(f). That the dismissal of the remaining allegations was improper. That they were entitled to amend their complaint. The demand for FTP's software was diminishing because many of FTP's clients were either developing the technology themselves or acquiring competing systems from other manufacturers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6E0673C81254FCC688256EE80057CC30/$file/0257148.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court determined that Nissan Motor's dilution suit was not barred by laches. That Nissan Computer's first commercial use of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/953694P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 1 The Honorable Michael J. Appellants operate their stores under the business name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1003.html">SCOSCHE V. VISOR GEAR<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002432.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Owosso argues that the guaranty was abrogated when the subsidiary was sold to another corporation. We will affirm.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40D3A2F6576A638188256A84007CD479/$file/9957003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In this case we must decide whether a consignor of goods named in a bill of lading has standing to sue the carrier for misdelivery of goods and breach of contract where there is evidence that the consignee. The consignor of goods was a party to the contract evidenced by the bill of lading with full rights to enforce it. FACTS The parties in this case are Lite On Peripherals. Lite On is a subsidiary of Silitek. Is the assignee of Silitek's rights under the bill of lading that is the center of this dispute. Is a company engaged in the business of transporting goods overseas. Reveal Computer Products is a computer manufacturing company located in California and is not a party to the case. Silitek gave Burlington an invoice and a packing list that indicated that the keyboards were to be shipped to Reveal at its offices in California. The goods were consigned to the order of Reveal. Although
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-4153.man.html">FREHLING ENTERPRISES V. INT'L SELECT GROUP (10/18/1999, NO. 98-4153)<BR></A><BR>
INTRODUCTION</CENTER> </P> <P> This is a servicemark infringement case. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-4153.man.html">FREHLING ENTERPRISES V. INT'L SELECT GROUP (10/18/1999, NO. 98-4153)<BR></A><BR>
INTRODUCTION</CENTER> </P> <P> This is a servicemark infringement case. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0207p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was not valid as applied to 1 No. 05 1952 Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. The suit was in response to Defendants' attempts to assess. Count I alleged that Plaintiff was entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief because Congress had not clearly authorized state taxation of the real property at issue. Count II alleged that Plaintiff was entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief because application of the Act would violate the terms of the 1854 Treaty. Entered a declaratory judgment that the Act was not valid as applied to the real property at issue. The Parties Plaintiff is a federally recognized American Indian tribe and is the successor in interest of the L'Anse and Ontonagon bands of Chippewa Indians. Defendant Robert Naftaly is the chairperson of the Michigan State Tax Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1447.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were John M. The Board held the mark was either generic or merely descriptive and without secondary meaning. This court vacates the Board's determination that the mark is generic. The examining attorney initially denied registration on the ground that the proposed mark was merely descriptive. This time finding that the mark was generic for the specified goods and services without any acquired distinctiveness under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). The Board affirmed the PTO's rejection on the ground that STEELBUILDING.COM is generic for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/995592.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider whether certain fraudulent transfer claims arising from transfers made by Cybergenics Corporation were included in a sale of all assets of Cybergenics so as to foreclose its creditors from thereafter pursuing those claims on behalf of its bankruptcy estate. We conclude that the sale of all of Cybergenics' assets did not encompass these claims and we therefore will reverse the District Court's dismissal of the creditors' complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Was a successful marketer of body building and weight loss products under the Cybergenics name. L&S was sold in a leveraged buyout. The newly formed Cybergenics Corporation became burdened with more than $60 million of debt that was secured by substantially all of Cybergenics' assets.1 In August 1996. The original purchase price was over $110 million. The purchase price was later reduced to approximately $60 million. 3 1996. Another party who bid $2.65 million was the successful purchaser of all Cybergenics' assets. The sale order was not appealed and the sale was consummated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1398.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robbins and Gadsby & Hannah LLP were on brief. P.C. were on brief. We are confronted in this case with difficult issues involving the interpretation of the Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act of 1930. Which is owned by Edward Koplovsky (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/042210P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was tried to a jury. One of the Zutzes' main concerns was whether the 4010 Drill would be compatible with their practice of incorporating herbicide into the soil before planting. Sedlacek would have told Case he was making an inquiry on behalf of a customer. Sedlacek asked Case whether the 4010 Drill was compatible with preplant incorporated herbicide.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1029.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.L.L.C.</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031108.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Dealers are CLM Equipment Company. Are Volvo Construction Equipment North America. Champion Road Machinery Limited (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-5170.htm">97-5170 -- NORAM GAS TRANSMISSION CO. V. ENTERPRISE RESOURCE CORP. -- 04/09/1998<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant appellant Alan G. Because the district court's findings are supported by the evidence. Background <p> Plaintiff Noram Gas Transmission Company is the successor in interest of Arkla Energy Resources. These volumes were known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0859p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have petitioned this court. The PFDA contends that the FTC's decision to implement a ban on casket handling fees was arbitrary and capricious and that the factual findings underlying that decision were unsupported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record taken as a whole. We will affirm the amended Funeral Rule. The FTC's decision to issue the Funeral Rule was appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Was affirmed in Harry & Bryant Co. v. The FTC adopted the amendment to the Funeral Rule which is at issue here. Inc. is a member. Sought and was granted permission to intervene. FACTS The Funeral Rule The Funeral Rule was enacted on September 24. The Funeral Rule was premised on evidence that consumers are uniquely disadvantaged when they purchase funeral services after the death of a loved one. The evidence showed that funeral service providers often sold only preselected packages of goods and services such that consumers were forced to purchase goods and services they did not want. [fn1] the purpose was to prevent funeral service providers from forcing customers to purchase goods or services they did not want.[fn2] However.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-4229.htm">01-4229 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001918.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bush
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1266r.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Filed a petition for rehearing en banc on behalf of the plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1A2AF3B55A2B5FC988256D1A007A6C99/$file/0215727.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that forum selection clauses in the invoices that Sabaté France sent to Chateau des Charmes were part of the contract between the parties and dismissed the case in favor of adjudication in France. Because we conclude that the forum selection clauses in question were not part of any agreement between the parties. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The material facts pertinent to this appeal are not disputed. 1 Sabaté France manufactures and sells special wine corks that it claims will not cause wines to be spoiled by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C43C738D3BA5C6FF88257266007AB1BA/$file/0450469.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have juris UNITED STATES v. Berger was Craig Electronics' President. Richardson was the Chief Financial Officer of Craig Electronics until May 31. Defendant Bonnie Metz was at various times a Vice President in Craig Electronics' Hong Kong and Cerritos. Metz is not a party to this appeal. Not to exceed $1 million. (3) Craig Electronics was prohibited from borrowing against goods that had been returned to Craig Electronics but not yet inspected. Or goods that were defective. Craig Electronics was required to provide Bankers Trust with a Borrowing Base Certificate (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8100.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The Rendezvous is a historical reenactment held each Labor Day weekend at the Fort Bridger Historical Site in Wyoming in which participants reenact an annual rendezvous held by local fur traders from 1825 to 1840. 000 visitors and is the largest of its kind in the region. Some of the members of the FBRA's fourteen person Board of Directors are also traders. As fewer than half of the traders are members of the FBRA. <hr> Among other things. Priority is given to traders who participated in the previous year's Rendezvous. He generally will receive the same space he occupied the year before. Or by traders who were at the previous Rendezvous but filed their applications after the deadline. Are accepted on a first come. The Gregorys were long time and large volume Rendezvous traders who offered a wide selection of goods at low prices as compared to most other traders including traders who were members and directors of the FBRA. Their trading post sales of goods were governed by a contract with the State of Wyoming rather than by the FBRA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/002713.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court held that it was clear from the complaint that plaintiffs' claims are subject to the two year statute of limitations governing actions for fraud under Virgin Islands law and that their filing of an earlier identical action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Which was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Since the complaint in this case was not filed within the two year limitations period. Plaintiffs submit that the most appropriate statute of limitations under Virgin Islands law is the catch all six year statute of limitations for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963637.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The boats were purchased by Bridge Bay using company checks. Each check was returned for insufficient funds. A third one was sold two weeks later. Seabring's motion was granted. The plaintiffs' motions were denied. The court noted that Section 26 of the British Columbia Sale of Goods Act states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963637.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The boats were purchased by Bridge Bay using company checks. Each check was returned for insufficient funds. A third one was sold two weeks later. Seabring's motion was granted. The plaintiffs' motions were denied. The court noted that Section 26 of the British Columbia Sale of Goods Act states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/96-3637.man.html">B.R.L. EQUIP. RENTALS V. SEABRING MARINE INDUS. (2/23/1999, NO. 96-3637)<BR></A><BR>
The boats were purchased by Bridge Bay using company checks. Each check was returned for insufficient funds. A third one was sold two weeks later. Seabring's motion was granted. The plaintiffs' motions were denied.</P> <P> The district court had previously determined that the law of British Columbia governed the suit. The court noted that Section 26 of the British Columbia Sale of Goods Act states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/96-3637.man.html">B.R.L. EQUIP. RENTALS V. SEABRING MARINE INDUS. (2/23/1999, NO. 96-3637)<BR></A><BR>
The boats were purchased by Bridge Bay using company checks. Each check was returned for insufficient funds. A third one was sold two weeks later. Seabring's motion was granted. The plaintiffs' motions were denied.</P> <P> The district court had previously determined that the law of British Columbia governed the suit. The court noted that Section 26 of the British Columbia Sale of Goods Act states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1105.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. Michael Johnson was injured when a pallet loaded with boxes of frozen cod fillets (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0220p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Amouri's Grand Foods Page 2 Background Lorillard manufactures and sells cigarettes under a variety of brand names (J.A. 55).1 One of its most popular brands is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1570b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Richard L. Of counsel were Anita Pamintuan Fusco and Henry N. With him on the brief for Gen Probe Incorporated were William G. Of counsel was Henry N. On the brief for Becton Dickinson and Company were Donald R. Of counsel were Denise W. 659 is invalid under the on sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Because the invention claimed in the '659 patent was the subject of an offer for sale before the critical date. We conclude that the patent is invalid and we affirm the district court's judgment. BACKGROUND Enzo is the assignee of the '659 patent. A composition of matter that is specific for Neisseria gonorrhoeae comprising at least one nucleotide sequence for which the ratio of the amount of said sequence which hybridizes to chromosomal DNA of Neisseria gonorrhoeae to the amount of said sequence which hybridizes to chromosomal DNA of Neisseria meningitidis is greater than about five. The method steps that follow are directed to obtaining the claimed ratio. Claim 4 of the patent is directed to the deposited probes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1568.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Keith H. Of counsel was Catherine L. Jackson may not collaterally challenge the district court's previous judgment that he is entitled to only $2.65 million rather than $12 million in damages for the manufacture. Which was affirmed in a previous appeal. Jackson is not entitled to a second trial as a matter of right simply because the district court stayed his counterclaims of indirect infringement. Jackson argued that the jury's damages award was reasonable based on the evidence that he adduced at trial showing the benefits Glenayre's customers enjoyed by infringing the '900 patent. Or conveying
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063507p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Final acceptance is when NJ TRANSIT inspects the car after the service representative has been on the property for at least one (1) week and the car is found to meet specifications and is functioning properly. Accidents and lack of proper (as stated in instruction books) maintenance are not covered by the warranty. Are not part of the warranty. The Because Harsco is the principal appellee and the manufacturer and seller of the inspection vehicle at issue. We will refer only to Harsco throughout this opinion as the appellee. Harsco was awarded the contract. The contract attached and incorporated the specifications that were included in Transit's Invitation for Bid. It also provided that: THIS LIMITED WARRANTY IS THE ONLY WARRANTY APPLICABLE TO THESE ENGINES AS USED IN CONSTRUCTION AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS. The terms of this warranty were also included with the Engine Operator's Guide provided to Transit. It was placed in service in June or July 2000.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/981809P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It stated that it was effective through December 31. He testified at trial that among the factors contributing to his decision was A/C's failure to keep its account with Lennox current. The letter noted that A/C's location in Tulsa was not a franchise location authorized under the January 2. Did not inform A/C that its delinquent account was a reason for Lennox's decision to terminate the franchise. 1996 was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-3019.htm">99-3019 -- SAC AND FOX NATION OF MISSOURI V. PIERCE -- 05/30/2000<BR></A><BR>
Is responsible for . Us is whether the State of Kansas may impose its . Within the State. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The facts underlying this case are not in dispute. The Tribes are the beneficial owners of trust lands within the State of Kansas. The stations are located along or near Kansas state . 79 3408(d)(1) (1999 Supp.)] exempts any fuel transactions where the fuel is exported
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-15497.opn.html">HYMAN V. NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-15497)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-15497.opn.html">HYMAN V. NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-15497)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1158p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/97-1475.htm">97-1475 -- COTTRELL LTD V. BIOTROL INTERNATIONAL INC. -- 09/10/1999<BR></A><BR>
Because the parties' products are antimicrobial pesticides. The cleaners and disinfectants are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E9439316125388F88256BA60080FF7C/$file/0155677.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court granted Hyundai judgment on the pleadings1 on the basis that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA)2 applied and its provisions barred Underwood's action based upon the Federal Bill of Lading Act (Pomerene Act)3 because this action was not commenced
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0257n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Giles brought suit against Ford for negligence after he was injured while making a delivery to Ford's Kentucky Truck Plant (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/976066P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The Hatchers are Iowa farmers. They owned farmland which was partly encumbered by a mortgage on which they fell delinquent. A sheriff's sale was set for January 6. Which consisted of 46 acres of land on which their residence and another building were situated. The Hatchers were able to locate yet another buyer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/042521U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeals from an order of the district court1 affirming a decision of the bankruptcy court2 holding that its purchase money security interest (PMSI) in certain property is inferior to a conflicting security interest held by Empire Bank (Empire). Stat. § 400.9 324(a) (West 2003) (stating general rule that perfected PMSI in goods other than inventory or livestock has priority over conflicting security interest in same goods if PMSI
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/03-1028a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311975.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a district court order denying the bondholder plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action and dismissing their complaint without prejudice on the grounds that they. Their case is not yet ripe. Of the dismissal. 2 1 issue was governed by a trust indenture.2 The bondholders were the intended third party beneficiaries of the trust indenture. A master trustee was appointed to oversee the transaction and collect payments as they became due. 1998.3 It is alleged that. It claims that it was unaware that the bondholders' perfected security interest had lapsed. S. Bank The security interest was perfected when the original UCC 1 financing statement was filed on December 22. It was effective for a five year period. Within six months prior to the expiration of the five year period beginning on the date the original financing statement was filed. The UCC 3 was due to be filed anytime from June 22. This was considered an event of default under Section 801 of the bond trust indenture.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982442P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of THORN EMI. Which is a wholly owned subsidiary of TEMINAH. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of THORN EMI. Thereby ceasing to have a separate corporate existence. 2 1 interest rates on credit sales of consumer goods. The District Court certified the plaintiff class to include
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0105n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Giles brought suit against Ford for negligence after he was injured while making a delivery to Ford's Kentucky Truck Plant (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0097p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Caremark specifically challenges the district court's declaration that the Bureau of TennCare's third party claims for Medicaid reimbursement are not subject to certain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90A6027D7FCE4E0C8825734C0057DA4E/$file/0535627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery. I A McKenzie and PeaceHealth are the only two providers of hospital care in Lane County. That the relevant market in this case is the market for primary and secondary acute care hospital services in Lane County. Primary and secondary acute care hospital services are common medical services like setting a broken bone and performing a tonsillectomy. McKenzie's sole endeavor is McKenzie Willamette Hospital. The largest of PeaceHealth's three facilities is Sacred Heart Hospital. It is necessary to appreciate the structure of the market in which this case arises. The market for hospital services and medical care is complex. Insurers are usually commercial health insurance companies that seek to buy medical services from hospitals on the best terms possible. The price agreed upon is often referred to as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/053458P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Adee Honey's principal place of business is in South Dakota. Mel O is owned by William Sill. They bought the company in 1997 and were referred to Richard by Mel O's prior owners. The purchase order noted it was a contract with a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1459.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief were Adam J. Of counsel was Joseph H. On the brief was Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Beth C. Which is reserved for light fixtures made of a base metal other than brass and imposes a 7.6 percent duty. Home Depot filed a series of actions in the Court of International Trade that were eventually consolidated into the single case now before us. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). The ultimate classification of the subject goods is the result of a factual inquiry and is reviewed for clear error. Although the trial court was required to give deference to Customs' classification decisions. It is nonetheless ultimately
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031769.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CROWELL FARMS Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Is a Virginia corporation that operates as an agricultural cooperative. Which is in the business of handling. The Agreement further required Crowell to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0303p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even after the packaging costs should have been paid in full. Jay argues that the district court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law because of the untimely nature of JCI's claims and because of the lack of evidence of an amortization agreement. JCI contends that it was entitled to damages prior to the time that it notified Jay of the overcharges and that the district court erred in allowing the jury to determine that Jay was entitled to an ongoing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/10/006021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the bankruptcy court. ISSUE The issue on appeal is whether under Minnesota law the Trustee. Because the Debtor was a retail operator of convenience stores. It had some inventory that was perishable and some dated inventory such as canned goods and other lower priced consumer products of the sort typically sold by a convenience store. Prompt liquidation of Debtor's inventory was necessary to get the highest possible liquidation value. The Letter Agreement expressly provided: It is agreed that the liens and lien rights which Fritz asserts against the inventory are preserved. The respective rights of Fritz and the Trustee with respect thereto are not prejudiced. That was the amount left over after Fritz offset a debit of $23. While Fritz was liquidating the Debtor's assets. The bankruptcy court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Trustee finding that the Additional Payments were preferential. Are preserved and are not affected by this transaction. 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW The facts are not in dispute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114872.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ballinger claims that § 247 is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce power. We have little trouble concluding that § 247. Is a constitutional expression of Congress' well established power to regulate the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce in order to prevent their use for harmful purposes. Concluding that § 247 was constitutional both facially and as applied. The panel held that although § 247 was a constitutional exercise of the commerce power. Ballinger is a practicing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961491.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Is a general contractor engaged in the business of building churches. West Virginia is engaged in the business of buying and selling used cranes and other heavy equipment. The crane which Morey was offering for sale was a P&H 670 crane which Morey had purchased from the Meade Paper Company in January 1994 and which had been built in the late 1960s. Eriksen responded that he was interested only in a newer crane. Eriksen arranged to have his mechanic. The crane was inoperable. Ward also visited Morey's paint shop to view the crane's boom and jib which were being sandblasted and painted. Morey and Eriksen negotiated a price for the crane as well as a price for a second crane which Eriksen was to buy. Those items on the P&H 670 crane that were on a list created by Ward. Morey advised Eriksen in writing that the cranes were ready for shipment and that all of the repair items to which Ward and Morey had agreed had been completed. Which specified that the sale was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/54863E9F9B5B3BDE88256B56005F5200/$file/0150328.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. One of which was not yet available to the public. Upon learning that the DVDs were stolen goods. Hardy showed up at the arranged rendezvous with the stolen DVDs and was arrested. Hardy and his partner were jointly tried for knowing possession of property stolen from an interstate shipment of goods. The undercover agent testified that Hardy was called away by a page while the two were negotiating a price for the DVDs. The agent further testified that Hardy explained that he and the person who had paged him were jointly engaged in an illicit real estate scheme. Counsel for the government suggested in closing argument that Hardy's comments about the real estate scheme helped establish that he knew the DVDs were stolen. Hardy was arrested while in possession of 540
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0184p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Chicago Title and First American are competitors in the title insurance industry. Magnuson is an individual with many years of experience in a variety of positions for companies in this industry. Contractual expiration of the non compete period was delayed until the end of 2006. Magnuson was appointed Division Vice President of another one of Fidelity's title insurance brands and no longer worked for Chicago Title. Attracting employees who possessed established relationships with customers and employees was critical to generating business growth. As the title insurance business is highly competitive with minimal product differentiation among competitors. Magnuson was based out of an office located in Columbus. Magnuson and First American challenge the following rulings of the district court: (1) finding that the Covenant was reasonable and therefore enforceable. (4) granting judgment as a matter of law on the issue that Chicago Title was a lost volume seller. (5) instructing the jury that the Covenant was reasonable for the full five year period.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2114.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bird and Hestres</SPAN> were on brief. Nez</SPAN> were on brief. Facts</SPAN></STRONG><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/95-1032.wpd.html">SYSTEMCARE, INC. V. WANG LAB. CORP.<BR></A><BR>
To the extent that these cases are inconsistent with today's holding. DISCUSSION A tying arrangement is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001125.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Judgment was entered in favor of Schmitz on its claim and in favor of Rockland on its counterclaim on December 30. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW Rockland is a Maryland corporation that manufactures drapery lining fabric. The fabric was SCHMITZ WERKE GMBH v. Was intended for sale in European markets. Claims that this is because the product did not meet its volume requirements. Schmitz is a German company that manufactures. During their negotiations Rockland's representatives stated that the fabric was particularly suited to be a printing base for transfer printing. Transfer printing is a process for imprinting the base fabric with dyes of particular colors or patterns. The fabric is drawn over a heated metal cylinder along with a sheet of transfer paper that contains the dye. The dye is heated by the cylinder and turns into a gas. Which is picked up by the fibers in the fabric. The sample was shipped to PMD. Schmitz notified Rockland that there were several problems with the fabric but that in general they were satisfied with the material.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021718.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a manufacturer of specialty motor vehicles. Among the replicars it manufactures and promotes for sale are race cars and roadsters modeled after the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2273.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sharp & Sharp were on brief. Was on brief. Lane stated that U.S. restrictions on trade with Libya were more stringent than those of the United Kingdom. The appellant prevaricated and told them that the goods were bound for Ethiopia. Belgium (a port through which it already was scheduled to pass en route to Cyprus). Although it originally was due to depart Charlestown on October 18. The appellant vouchsafed that the computer equipment was destined for Ethiopia and signed a false SED. Neither she nor Sullivan was named as a defendant (presumably because they were beyond the court's jurisdiction). He attempted to explain away his false claim that Ethiopia was the country of ultimate destination as a standard broker's business practice designed to mask his customer's identity. His cardinal contention is that the admission of this evidence abrogated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. A. Setting the Stage The parties who agree on little else share the view that Redpath was a key witness. The motion invoked a procedural rule that provides in pertinent part: Whenever due to exceptional circumstances of the case it is in the interest of justice that the testimony of a prospective witness of a party be taken and preserved for use at trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043874p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both of which are Delaware corporations with their principal place of business in California. Is the exclusive licensee of the FREEDOM CARD marks. 5 1 claims UTN brought against Chase.2 UTN asserted those claims in counterclaims it filed in response to Chase's declaratory judgment action. We will affirm.4
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ0NDMtYWcucGRm/04-4443-ag.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The brothers were the only members of the partnership. The issue is whether the fair market value of the artwork upon which the estate tax was calculated also constitutes the cost basis of the property for income tax purposes when it was later sold. The taxpayers do not challenge the accuracy of the method used to calculate the fair market value of the works of art upon which the estate tax was calculated. The Ninth Circuit held that the value of the artwork owned by Sidney Janis at his death was a question of fact and that (1) the valuation of $14.5 million placed upon it by the Tax Court was not clearly erroneous and (2) the Janises were obligated by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2481.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1352.html">TEXPORT OIL V. USA<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was Christopher E. With him on the brief were David M. On the brief were G. Of counsel was Jack D. Or fee imposed under Federal law because of [the merchandise's] importation
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52442E0472C59C4888256BA60080DFDA/$file/0150328.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2002 is hereby recalled for the purpose of amending the opinion. 2002 is hereby amended as follows: At slip opinion page 1768. DVD is valued at one and twelve hundredths of a cent less than the suggested retail price. The total loss valuation will be less than $70. Hardy is potentially eligible for alternative detention as well as a lower sentencing range. 6272 UNITED STATES v. The Clerk is directed to reissue the mandate forthwith. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. One of which was not yet available to the public. Upon learning that the DVDs were stolen goods. Hardy showed up at the arranged rendezvous with the stolen DVDs and was arrested. Hardy and his partner were jointly tried for knowing possession of property stolen from an interstate shipment of goods. The undercover agent testified that Hardy was called away by a page while the two were negotiating a price for the DVDs. The agent further testified that Hardy explained that he and the person who had paged him were jointly engaged in an illicit real estate scheme.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7252A250DFE935888256D370001EA62/$file/0156929.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is one. Although we agree with the district court that Cervantes cannot recover damages for false imprisonment or false arrest because the customs agents had reasonable cause to believe his arrest was lawful. The United States' defense to his negligence claim is patently without merit. In determining whether dismissal was properly granted. We assume all factual allegations are true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. They would have discovered 119 pounds of marijuana secreted in its bumpers. He was arrested and incarcerated for importing illegal drugs into the United States. He was released on February 9. Id. § 2674. [2] The FTCA's broad waiver of sovereign immunity is limited. [3] [avoid] extending the coverage of the Act to suits for which adequate remedies were already available. B. False arrest and false imprisonment [3] Cervantes's claims for false arrest and false imprisonment are barred by his lawful arrest upon probable cause. Either (1) effects a lawful arrest or (2) has reasonable cause to believe the arrest is lawful.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-3556.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ROSS (12/19/1997, NO. 96-3556)<BR></A><BR>
The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams and their co conspirators created shell corporations and contrived deceptive paper transactions that had no economic substance.</P> <P> Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. Under separate headings.</P> <P> We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error.</P> <P> We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering.</P> <P><CENTER>I</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963556.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error. We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-3556.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ROSS (12/19/1997, NO. 96-3556)<BR></A><BR>
The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams and their co conspirators created shell corporations and contrived deceptive paper transactions that had no economic substance.</P> <P> Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. Under separate headings.</P> <P> We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error.</P> <P> We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering.</P> <P><CENTER>I</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1291.html">RECOT, INC. V. M.C. BECTON<BR></A><BR>
On the brief were <u>Laurence R. ) dismissed the opposition on the ground that there was no likelihood that consumers would confuse FIDO LAY with Recot
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/97-5517.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court invalidated the Bank's mortgage on real estate owned by a partnership of which the debtors and Sanchez were the partners. The issues presented for review are (i) whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear this adversary proceeding. Whether the district court was correct in treating it as a core proceeding rather than as a non core proceeding requiring <EM>de novo. That this was a non core matter necessitating plenary review by the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>FACTS</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> In 1988. The purpose of the partnership was to hold. No formal partnership agreement was ever entered into. Orlando Toledo continued to act as managing partner and Carmen Sanchez was uninvolved in Partnership affairs.</P> <P> In April of 1989. This was done without Sanchez' consent or knowledge. If the mortgage was valid. Sanchez was not served with the notice of foreclosure and therefore was not a party to these Florida state court proceedings. At some $1.8 million) was still unsatisfied thereafter.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/97-5517.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court invalidated the Bank's mortgage on real estate owned by a partnership of which the debtors and Sanchez were the partners. The issues presented for review are (i) whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear this adversary proceeding. Whether the district court was correct in treating it as a core proceeding rather than as a non core proceeding requiring <EM>de novo. That this was a non core matter necessitating plenary review by the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>FACTS</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> In 1988. The purpose of the partnership was to hold. No formal partnership agreement was ever entered into. Orlando Toledo continued to act as managing partner and Carmen Sanchez was uninvolved in Partnership affairs.</P> <P> In April of 1989. This was done without Sanchez' consent or knowledge. If the mortgage was valid. Sanchez was not served with the notice of foreclosure and therefore was not a party to these Florida state court proceedings. At some $1.8 million) was still unsatisfied thereafter.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-3009a.html">USA V. KOLTERJOSEPH<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0041p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brilliance is in the business of producing and selling audiobooks. The two editions are packaged and marketed differently. It is unclear how. Audio Adventures LLC (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1585.html">TOM CUNNINGHAM V. LASER GOLF CORP.<BR></A><BR>
S findings are supported by substantial evidence. The device has a hollow plastic head that is not designed to impact golf balls. The device is used by golfers to practice and improve their golf swing with the aid of two light emitting diodes of different colors contained in the head. LASERSWING is registered on the Principal Register and Cunningham alleges a first use in 1993. S registration contains a typed drawing and states that the mark is for golf clubs.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0467p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The suit against Meggitt PLC was subsequently dismissed. Airplanes were required to fly with at least 2. The purpose of RVSM regulations is to allow a larger number of aircraft to fly at fuel efficient altitudes (approximately 29. Although newer aircraft are being built with RVSM compliant altimeters. Aircraft that are not properly equipped are not allowed to fly in RVSM airspace. It was Alternative's responsibility. An STC is required in order to flight certify an aircraft that is retrofitted with a new altimetry system. Two kinds of STCs from the FAA are required: a hardware STC. Which is the STC for the equipment itself. Which is based on the performance of the installed equipment in use. B. The Alternative Meggitt Contract Alternative began preparing to retrofit aircraft for RVSM compliance several years before the FAA's RVSM program was to take effect. Inquiring about Meggitt's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031286p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties have indicated that the dispute between Houbigant and Fireman's Fund has been settled. That appeal is moot. 1 I. The Insureds were granted a license to manufacture and sell certain Houbigant fragrances and use the trademarks associated with them. The Insureds were required to manufacture. (4) indicating that the Chantilly fragrance was produced by the Insureds. The Insureds were covered by two policies issued by Federal: (1) the Commercial General Liability policy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2EFBED4DA930CDA8825706E004F3CC1/$file/0355957.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1071.html">DONALD H. RUMS V. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Robert D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>William F. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Roger N. Desai</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Paul L. 2001).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board found that payments made to Pratt s foreign suppliers to acquire parts under collaboration agreements were not costs for purposes of calculating indirect cost pool (overhead) allocation bases under the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Id.</u> at 1.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because we conclude that Pratt did incur a cost for collaboration parts. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982113.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was aware of Audio Visual's arrangement with CSR and CSR's award from the Navy. The purchase order included the following language: 2 PLEASE ADVISE OUR COST IF CASH IS PROVIDED WITH ORDER ***** DO NOT RELEASE ORDER BEFORE YOU [HAVE] RECEIVED WRITTEN OR VERBAL AUTHORIZATION FROM GARY LUNSFORD OR BOB DVORAK The purchase order was signed by Bob Dvorak as Audio Visual's executive vice president and owner. A Sharp employee called Audio Visual demanding
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1968.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Samson PC</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971032.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Tommy Larsen is a designer of products of functional art. Tommy Larsen manufactures and distributes his products through Tommy Larsen AS.1 Terk is a small. The CD 25 is 1 When this lawsuit was filed. Tommy Larsen AS was a Danish entity referred to by the denomination
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971833.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because the district court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law are correct. Which apparently were to be attached to the three documents under negotiation in the event of an agreement between the parties. Chesapeake's three general partners each signed an affidavit (Partnership Affidavit) stating that the Purchase and Sale Agreement had been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ACFF0DE3663BE67688257177007E5B65/$file/0555828.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The critical issue in dispute is whether the State owns any protectible interest in the trademarks. Which were both built in the 1820s. Each building has a rich history: Casa de Pico was built by Pio Pico. While Casa de Bandini was built by a Peruvian immigrant of Italian descent who became a prominent San Diegan. The Casa de Pico building was operated as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/985522.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The constitutionality of a statute criminalizing an activity that is not directly linked to interstate commerce. The precise question before us is whether it was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to enact 18 U.S.C. Which imposes criminal liability on individuals who possess child pornography that has not itself traveled in interstate commerce as long as one of the materials from which the pornography was created in this case. This statute has a jurisdictional element or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/97-6109.man.html">CULPEPPER V. INLAND MORTGAGE CORP. (1/9/1998, NO. 97-6109)<BR></A><BR>
The district court granted summary judgment to defendant Inland Mortgage Corp. and held that the payment it made was not prohibited by RESPA. The Yield Spread Premium</P> <P> The pertinent facts are undisputed. Sends Premiere daily rate sheets that show the types of loans Inland will make to qualified borrowers. This is the lowest interest rate at which Inland will make loans without charging the borrower
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0973p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a trade dress infringement action in which plaintiff Versa Products Company. Which Versa maintains copies the product configuration of the B 316.[fn1] The action was brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That there was a likelihood of confusion of the sources of Bifold's Domino Junior and Versa's B 316 valves. In connection with which we are called upon to determine whether the jurisprudence that lowers the standard to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/031197u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appeal was from a non final order. CitiSteel's complaint further alleges the transformer failure was a direct and proximate result of GE's faulty workmanship.1 The dispute. Contains the following language: Warranty offering: One year from installation with the understanding that CitiSteel will install the unit within 12 months of completion of repair. Also included for general warranty information is GE ISS form 4887 (CS 1/89). Form 4887 is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1158.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Terence P. Of counsel were Lane S. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Ada E. GmbH (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF7CCDB0A79D0EF3882573330054DD2A/$file/0515189.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: These are consolidated appeals in two diversity actions brought under Nevada law. Where the meaning is not clear from the context. The dealership repays GMAC the portion of the loan attributable to an individual vehicle when that vehicle is sold or leased. GMAC enters into a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/97-6109.man.html">CULPEPPER V. INLAND MORTGAGE CORP. (1/9/1998, NO. 97-6109)<BR></A><BR>
The district court granted summary judgment to defendant Inland Mortgage Corp. and held that the payment it made was not prohibited by RESPA. The Yield Spread Premium</P> <P> The pertinent facts are undisputed. Sends Premiere daily rate sheets that show the types of loans Inland will make to qualified borrowers. This is the lowest interest rate at which Inland will make loans without charging the borrower
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1063.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Frank J. With him on the brief was Lile H. Which was opened in 1898 by César Ritz. The Ritz Hotel is one of the most luxurious and renowned hotels in the world. These products are sold under a variety of registered marks. Which was derived from its founder's last name. Shen's appeal is moot. 04 1063. The board found that while shower curtains are closely related to Shen's products. RHL's PUTTING ON THE RITZ mark is dissimilar to Shen's RITZ mark in terms of appearance. Again the board found that the goods described in RHL's applications were related to Shen's goods. That the differences in the marks were sufficient to prevent any likelihood of confusion. Finding that there was a likelihood of confusion because cooking classes require the use of kitchen textiles. 1076 that gloves are too related to barbeque mitts considering the similarity of the marks. Whether there is a likelihood of confusion is a question of law based on underlying facts. The PTO may refuse to register a trademark that is so similar to a registered mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0361p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court holding that certain sums received by the Petitioner Appellant. During tax years 1995 and 1996 were license fees and therefore taxable as ordinary income under the Internal Revenue Code. The legal issue presented in this case is whether the agreement between the taxpayer and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment L.L.C. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511233.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thorne argues that the district court erred in granting the Rule 50 motion because there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to show that he was entitled to individual coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act when he regularly used Defendants' credit cards. This Court finds that Thorne failed to present sufficient evidence that he was either engaged in interstate commerce or was engaged in the production of goods for commerce. Finding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0010p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bank One was not liable for the depreciation in value of the shares it held as collateral for a loan to Johnson. Johnson also argues that summary judgment is inappropriate with regards to Bank One's counterclaims against him. The grant of summary judgment to the defendants is AFFIRMED. I. BACKGROUND This case arises out of two loan transactions made by Bank One to plaintiffs Johnson and Geoff Layne (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611136.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Suplimet Corporation was a Miami based company acting as a wholesale distributor of cell phone parts and accessories. Police received information that Suplimet was selling counterfeit items. Who was present. As he was only Suplimet's sales manager. No criminal charges were filed at this time.1 Honorable Tom Stagg. Herman and Xavier were indicted for conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and trafficking in counterfeit goods. Section 2B5.3 is used to calculate the offense level for a conviction stemming from the counterfeiting and/or infringement of a trademark or copyright. Which is then enhanced on the basis of the amount of the infringement. The total offense level for both defendants was 27. They argued that the correct computations should have reflected the value of the counterfeit or infringing 3 items in the market in which those goods were sold. Which in this case was Latin America. Their offense levels would have been 8. Asserted that the retail value 4 of the legitimate or infringed item in the United States was the proper valuation method under section 2B5.3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0910p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the Order of the district court and we will remand the matter for further proceedings. I. Introduction and Factual Background[fn1] AT&T is a long distance telecommunications carrier that. Its rates and practices are governed by tariffs it files with the Federal Communications Commission. Only the reseller is a customer of AT&T. The end users are customers of the reseller and not of AT&T. Appellee Winback is a reseller of 800 inbound telecommunications services and appellee Inga is its president. Hereafter we usually will refer to both simply as Winback. As are other resellers. Winback is both a customer and a competitor of AT&T. Was infringing on AT&T's trademarks and service marks. Falsely representing that it was affiliated with AT&T and passing itself off as AT&T.[fn3] The parties resolved the case by entering into a Consent Final Order and Injunction. Were responsible for any infringing acts.[fn5] Consequently. The Final Order and Injunction was amended to obligate One Stop to serve each of its sales agents with a copy of the Order.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7CDCB1F8A8992373882570930054C7DD/$file/0435229.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Idaho Potato Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/042604P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The other defendants then settled with Goss and are no longer parties to this lawsuit. Goss's claims against TKS were tried to a jury. (5) sufficient evidence does not support the jury's verdict that TKS dumped products onto the United States printing press market that were comparable to the products TKS sold in Japan. Because Goss's claims against TKS were pending at the time Congress repealed the 1916 Act. A typical large printing press system is over 100 feet long. Once a large printing press is installed. It oftentimes is referred to as an installed base. Is so large and expensive. This is often referred to as the installed base advantage. Price is the primary factor. The United States market for large printing press equipment is rather small. Because the market is so compact. Goss was the only domestic manufacturer of large printing presses in the United States. Goss noticed TKS was a major foreign competitor in the United States market. All of these sales were dumped. They were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1168.html">LOCKWOOD V. AMERICAN AIRLINES<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1364.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nickless</SPAN> with whom </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/995791.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Texas Pacific Group's agreement to restrict the hiring of certain employees upon Lucent's sale of Paradyne Corp. was a violation of S 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. W e hold the no hire agreement was a valid covenant not to compete that was reasonable in scope and therefor e not a violation of S 1 of the Sherman Act. Also we hold plaintif fs have presented sufficient prima facie evidence of AT&T and Lucent's specific intent to interfer e with an ERISA funded employee pension fund to survive summary judgment on the ERISA S 510 claim. The pr emise for the hiring bar was AT&T's belief that one of Paradyne's most marketable assets was its skilled employees. Was considered essential for the sale of Paradyne. Were pr ecluded from seeking re employment at any other AT&T division or affiliate after the trivestiture. This
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/995116.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They are entitled to an abatement of the penalties assessed under those provisions. Concluded that reasonable cause was not established by the Taxpayers because financial distress was the only fact and circumstance supporting their failure to pay and deposit employment taxes timely. Because we believe the Brewery bright line test is inconsistent with both Congress' creation of a reasonable cause exception and Treas. We believe the better reasoned approach is the one set forth in Fran Corp. v. We have concluded that reasonable cause existed for the Taxpayers' failure to pay and deposit their employment taxes timely. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and enter judgment for the Taxpayers. I. The following facts are undisputed and have been largely stipulated to by the parties. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0706p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of the defendant. The product at issue here is an anchoring system made by Lucker for the off shore oil drilling industry and called a Lateral Mooring System (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/951158P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
761.48 made by Debtor to David Huddle and the Bank was an avoidable preferential transfer. The Trustee argues that the bankruptcy court erred in holding that the money paid by Debtor to Huddle and the Bank was held by the Debtor as an agent for its principal. It was therefore not property of the estate which the Trustee could recover under § 547. Background The underlying facts are summarized as follows. Debtor was a corporation in the business of auctioning personal property for its customers. Huddle's business assets were the security for a loan which had been made by the Bank to Huddle. Which was deposited in Debtor's general bank account. Seeking to set aside the payment made by Debtor to the Bank and Huddle on grounds that the payment was an avoidable preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b).2 The Trustee maintained that Huddle was a creditor and the money in dispute was property of the bankruptcy estate which should be distributed in the normal course of the bankruptcy proceedings. Debtor and Huddle were in an agent principal relationship.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/011949P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an Arkansas attorney who organized Ponzi schemes3 to defraud investors. He is currently incarcerated in a state penitentiary serving a 156 year sentence for his crimes. An involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed with the bankruptcy court and an order for relief was entered on March 13. Meeks was appointed trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding. Harrah's is the operator of Harrah's Casino Cruises in Tunica. Ponzi schemes are fraudulent business ventures in which investors'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-14798.opn.html">MAYTRONICS, LTD. V. AQUA VAC SYS., INC. (1/4/2002, NO. 00-14798)<BR></A><BR>
Maytronics began ordering parts to prepare for increased business based on Leslie's projected sales. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-1020a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1444A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Voelker appeals from the district court's dismissal of his claims for breach of OE The opinion in this case was originally published on November 3. This revised opinion is substituted for the opinion published November 3. We assume that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. This warranty was to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-14798.opn.html">MAYTRONICS, LTD. V. AQUA VAC SYS., INC. (1/4/2002, NO. 00-14798)<BR></A><BR>
Maytronics began ordering parts to prepare for increased business based on Leslie's projected sales. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1171_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wright countered that not only was the technological knowledge provided by CERAbio 2 No. 04 1171 worthless and that it therefore had not performed its end of the deal. Which we agree was in error. CERAbio was strictly a research and development company which did not manufacture or sell Apatight or other products commercially. Wright markets and sells biologics worldwide and was looking to expand its product offerings in the bone replacement market. CERAbio informed Wright that it had an established and repeatable process for producing Apatight and that all of the raw materials necessary were commercially available. Wright agreed to pay $3 million for the CERAbio assets with $1.5 million payable upon closing and a second installment of $1.5 million due no later than three days after Wright verified that it was able to produce Apatight (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034490ppan.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were retained by several banks to auction repossessed automobiles at the highest price and reimburse the proceeds. We consider whether there was sufficient 3 evidence to sustain the Defendants' convictions. We will affirm their judgments of conviction. Sentencing Guidelines (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B97BF2891383BD48825730600829913/$file/0575337.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sells photographs to tourists on a historic naval ship is entitled to collect benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1498.html">AMMEX, INC., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Herbert C. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Robert D. International Trade Field Office.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Beth C. From which it seeks to sell gasoline an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1444.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We assume that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. This warranty was to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014463A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arthur Hilts (collectively the Defendants) were convicted of using interstate wires for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud Canada and the Province of Ontario of excise duties and tax revenues relating to the importation and sale of liquor. No doubt this smuggling operation was spawned to supply a black market for liquor in Canada that had been created when. The store owners were not prosecuted for violations of United States Department of Treasury Regulations which required that they record and report bulk sales of alcohol. 1 4 UNITED STATES v. Border crossings were monitored electronically. Several vehicles that were registered to drivers involved in the scheme failed to stop for a second inspection when requested. ATF agents and Royal Canadian Mounted Police also conducted surveillance of David and Carl Pasquantino and their associates loading liquor in Maryland and unloading it in Canada after it was smuggled through Canadian customs. Marked bottles of liquor were recovered in Canada. The Defendants were indicted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511951.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Ricky Bracewell from an order of the district court excluding from the estate a payment Bracewell received under the Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003 for crop losses he had sustained. The appeal turns on the issue of whether a crop disaster payment is property of the debtor's estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) or (a)(6) if the losses occurred before the bankruptcy filing or conversion date but the legislation authorizing the payment came afterwards. The bankruptcy court ruled that the payments were property of the estate under § 541(a)(1) but not under (a)(6). The district court ruled that the payment was not property of the bankruptcy estate under either subsection of § 541. This is the trustee's appeal from that ruling. I. The facts have been stipulated throughout these proceedings. He was unable to repay the debts he had incurred to produce the crops. While Bracewell's bankruptcy petition was pending. The Emergency Farmer and Rancher Assistance Act of 2002 was introduced in the House of Representatives.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0363n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Abandonment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1440.html">FLORIDA SUGAR MARKETING AND TERMINAL ASSOCIATION, INC., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Terence P. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Richard McManus</u>. The appeal was submitted for our decision following oral argument on April 7. The tax is imposed on the shipper and liability attaches at the time of unloading. Those payments are the subject of this appeal.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTE0OTlfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-1499_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was a member of the panel. He also challenges the constitutionality of the federal statute requiring states to have a federally mandated scheme for licensing wholesale drug distributors engaged in interstate commerce. He contends that his sentence was impermissibly enhanced based on misinterpretations of the Guidelines and on facts not found by the jury. That he is entitled to be resentenced in any event because the Guidelines. Are unconstitutional. The only FDA approved distributor of Eldepryl in the United States was Somerset Pharmaceuticals. The only FDA approved distributor of Pergonal and Metrodin in the United States was Serono Labs USA. Metrodin distributed in the United States by these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 companies were manufactured and packaged outside the United States in compliance with FDA standards. Of which three are relevant here. The law forbids distribution in interstate commerce of drugs that are misbranded. Prescription drugs are subject to the general federal statutory prohibition of trafficking in counterfeit goods.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-6277.htm">00-6277 -- VITTORIA NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C. V. EURO-ASIA IMPORTS INC. -- 12/12/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2114REHEARINGOPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bird and Hestres</SPAN> were on brief. Nez</SPAN> were on brief. We affirm. <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0149n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
228 and was delivered to Frozen Specialties in August 1995. The ammonia detection system was installed No. 06 3777 Wagner Meinert v. 1 although EDA did provide a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/45814D6321BF8DA888256B5D005D4500/$file/0056559.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR>
The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513005.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a subsidiary of Allegheny Technologies. Which produces various metals and metal based products. 2 1 TaC is a component of tungsten graded carbide powder. Which is used to harden other 2 metals. with TDY. Seeking to recover the balance of the amount Treibacher would have received had TDY paid for all of the TaC specified in the November and December 2000 contracts.3 The case proceeded to a bench trial. Count I is a claim for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5057.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A state search warrant was executed upon Dopp's property in Wyandotte. Dopp was arrested and eventually convicted in Oklahoma state court of various drug and firearm charges. He was sentenced to. Dopp asserted they (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. 1187 (10th Cir. 2003). (2) Loring and Wyant were Ottawa County District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney. At the time the search warrant was executed on Dopp's residence. May and Anderson were Loring's and Wyant's successors. Morris is an investigator for the Ottawa County District Attorney's Office. Where many of the vehicles seized from Dopp's residence were towed. None of which was used as evidence in his criminal trial: (1) 1965 Ford pickup truck. It determined an investigation and special report were necessary to develop a record sufficient to ascertain whether there were any factual and legal bases for Dopp's claims. The court denied Dopp's motion and again reminded the parties the pending motion to dismiss was being treated as a motion for summary judgment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1850.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom McConnell Valdes was on brief. With whom Bird Bird and Hestres was on brief. Wakefield & Spedale were on brief. Were allowed to intervene. Suit was originally brought in rem against the vessel. Were also held liable on two of the judgments (for the original charterer and another intervening charterer). The proceeds of the sale are insufficient to satisfy even these four successful claims. Were not allowed to intervene. Arguing that the district court's entry of judgment against them is in error. They argue that the two charterers were awarded excessive damages. These four appeals were consolidated. I. The underlying facts are not now in dispute. The M/V VASILIA EXPRESS was owned by Royal United Shipping. Was registered in the West Indies. During this litigation it was established that. The vessel was actually 1. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043408p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants/Plaintiffs are physicians and their professional corporations who purchased life insurance through Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0424p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although the action was not technically mooted by events subsequent to the initiation of the action. We affirm the judgment of the district court because the action was not ripe. Cox Nos. 01 2392/2518 Ammex is a Michigan corporation that operates a United States Customs Class 9 bonded warehouse and duty free store in Detroit. The Ammex store is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/024157P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Harrod and others (the Harrods) appeal from the District Court's1 decision that certain items were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1615r.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were John B. With him on the brief were R. Of counsel were David W. Is withdrawn. This opinion is substituted therefor. We conclude that the district court was correct in sending the question of infringement of the system and apparatus claims to the jury. An
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022897.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the district court's order and judgment and will remand the case for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND Chi Mei is a New Jersey corporation and Minmetals is a corporation formed and existing under the laws of the People's Republic of China (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR>
The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512327.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: This appeal raises the question: under what circumstances will a creditor be barred from later bringing an action against a co creditor based upon state law claims if. That Kodak was precluded from bringing the New York action by the doctrine of res judicata as a result of orders issued by the bankruptcy court in a bankruptcy filed by Atlanta Retail. We hold that res judicata does not bar the New York action because Kodak could not have received a full remedy in the contested Wolf bankruptcy proceedings and because the same nucleus of operative fact was not presented in the two actions. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the injunction is vacated. Entered into an agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1912.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McGlone</U> were on brief for Plaintiff. Martin PLLC</U> were on brief for Defendant. The jury also found that the club was 35% comparatively negligent. 12% of which was attributable to the club's breach of duty of ordinary care and 23% of which was attributable to the club's failure to install sprinklers in and around the sauna room. The sauna room was constructed entirely of wood. A metal box placed in a corner of the room with heating elements that were designed to be covered by a mound of rocks. There were two wooden railings around the heater to prevent patrons of the club from accidentally coming into contact with the heater itself. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0074n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At least fourteen separate allegedly defamatory statements were identified. APC was the only provider of such services in the area. The series was also extensively promoted by the station by use of clips of portions of the report calculated to pique the interest of the viewing public.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4067a.htm">99-4067A -- PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. V. HAUGEN -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR>
Which were not intended to be included in the published opinion. A corrected copy of the opinion is attached. <p> Sincerely. G is a corporate agent of Satan. Is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. There is record evidence that Amway distributors are responsible for inspiring and encouraging distributors to whom they sell. Who in turn are encouraged to emulate those above them in the Amway distribution hierarchy. Although Amway distributors are strongly encouraged to purchase. Amway and its distributors have the ability to send messages to. Haugen is a distributor of Amway products and a developer of Amway business in the Amway distribution chain. At the time this action was commenced. Walker International Network (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4067.htm">99-4067 -- PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. V. HAUGEN -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR>
G is a corporate agent of Satan. Is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. Who in turn follow suit in a cycle that replicates itself. <strong>(<u>Id.</u> at 3079 81.)</strong> There is record evidence that Amway distributors are responsible for inspiring and encouraging distributors to whom they sell. Who in turn are encouraged to emulate those above them in the Amway distribution hierarchy. <strong>(IX App. at 2915:21 2916:20. X App. at 3213:16 3214:15.) </strong> Although Amway distributors are strongly encouraged to purchase. Amway and its distributors have the ability to send messages to. Haugen is a distributor of Amway products and a developer of Amway business in the Amway distribution chain. At the time this action was commenced. Walker International Network (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981199.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The Woodlands Skilled Nursing Center is located in Rutherfordton. Was built by RNH in the late 1970s. The original operator of the facility was a company named ISO. Which later were acquired by Rutherford. Are scheduled to expire in April 2000 and cover the facility's real and personal property. A copy of the bankruptcy court's order and Notice to Interested Parties was mailed to Rutherford along with forty other potential buyers. The Rutherford Nursing Center was identified as a 150 bed facility
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0MDItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5402-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) imposing a remedy disgorgement that defendants appellants allege is beyond the power of the federal courts. Defendants contend that the District Court's action was erroneous on several grounds. We consider two of the defendants' arguments in greater detail: (1) that the District Court should have allowed defendants to benefit from an exemption to the federal securities registration For reasons substantially similar to those articulated in this opinion. Franklin arose from the same district court proceedings and was argued befo re this Court in tandem with the instant cases. 1 2 requirements2 and (2) that the District Court exceeded its authority in granting equitable disgorgement of defendants' ill gotten profits. The facts below are drawn from the complaint of the SEC and the Cavanagh III opinion of the District Court. A Massachusetts corporation that was developing a fingerprint verification system. Prohibits the sale or delivery after sale of any security by means of interstate comm erce
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-5351a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Cooper was on the brief for amicus curiae American Kennel Club. Joseph Mendelson III was on the brief. Which is administered by the Department of Agricul ture. The Secretary defines
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/869670FD772466768825731A008228BA/$file/0355015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2007 is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6405. The Ministry argues that the Cubic judgment is not a blocked asset under TRIA because Executive Order 12. The reasoning in those cases is inapplicable here. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court on the alternative ground that the judgment is subject to attachment under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4071.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These matters are before the court on the petition for rehearing filed on behalf of Garfield and Kane Counties. We have determined to amend the original panel opinion on page 86. A copy of the amended opinion is attached to this order. The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied in all respects. Most of the transportation routes of the West were established under its authority. R.S. 2477 rights of way were an integral part of the congressional pro development lands policy. The statute thus had the effect of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2111.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief. The Neuhoffs noticed that many of the windows were decaying and notified Simon Hickman. Of the decay.</P> <P> The parties disagree as to when Marvin was notified of the decay. The Neuhoffs contend that Marvin was notified in 1994 or early 1995 when Marvin's area distributor came to examine the windows. Marvin replaced 33 of the windows that were in the most advanced state of decay.</P> <P> In June 2000. Summary judgment is inappropriate if there is a genuine issue as to any material fact. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0147p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200511/04-1073a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the briefs were Kenneth P. May were on the brief for amici curiae The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Ruden was on the brief for amicus curiae American Society of Travel Agents. 2 Thomas L. With him on the brief were Robert H. States that an independent computer reservation system (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971604.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1260p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold the Amendment was a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Was enacted by Congress in 1895. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that was engaged in the business of taking orders for. Pic A State's operations were designed to avoid the longstanding prohibition on the interstate traffic in lottery tickets by keeping the tickets themselves in the state of origin and transferring only a computer generated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2009_015A.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It was a van the interior of which could be converted by the owner in about an hour from a mobile office to a camper. Vans of this sort are called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1392.html">EARL E. THOMPSON, SR., V. HENRY HAYNES<BR></A><BR>
2001) ( <u>Judgment</u> ).<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5351a.html">DORIS DAY ANIMAL LEAGUE V. ANN VENEMAN<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Cooper was on the brief for amicus curiae American Kennel Club. Argued the cause for appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Joseph Mendelson III was on the brief. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Before:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Randolph and Rogers. Which is administered by the Department of Agricul ture. Any outlet where only the following animals are sold or offered for sale. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>9 C.F.R. s 1.1.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The effect of this regulation is to exempt breeders who sell dogs as pets from their residences.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span> The issue is whether the regulation is valid. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Doris Day Animal League. 'Retail pet store' means any retail outlet where animals are sold only as pets at retail.". In 7 U.S.C. s 2132(f) and the licensing exemption of s 2133. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>There is no need to repeat the standards for reviewing an agency's interpretation of a statute it alone administers.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>See Envirocare of Utah.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-12788.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GIORDANO (8/15/2001, NO. 99-12788)<BR></A><BR>
Were indicted in an antitrust conspiracy.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0107n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Nortel is a market leader engaged in the production of telephone and data systems. Both CTUnify and Global Knowledge are corporations that provide training on the use and application of Nortel telephone and data systems. Although the amended CTUnify's initial complaint merely alleged that the defendants were in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 26. Including numerous provisions that are wholly inapplicable in this case. The district court concluded that CTUnify was attempting to assert an impermissible tying arrangement in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. A. Alleged Violation of the Sherman Act The Supreme Court has explained that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-12788.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GIORDANO (8/15/2001, NO. 99-12788)<BR></A><BR>
Were indicted in an antitrust conspiracy.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001032.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FIBER TECH MEDICAL Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appellant Karl Storz Endoscopy America (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1254.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Sandra Edelman. The Board held that the opposition is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel arising from prior district court infringement litigation. The dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded to the PTO for further proceedings. Mayer/Berkshire states that it and its predecessor companies have used BERKSHIRE since 1906 in their trade name and since 1925 as a trademark in association with apparel including socks. The application with the remaining Class 18 goods was passed 04 1254 2 to publication. The Board suspended the opposition proceeding in Class 18 until the district court action was concluded. Have defendants infringed plaintiff's trademark. Is there a likelihood of confusion resulting from the use by defendants of the trademark and trade name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTE0ODhfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-1488_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Appellant Luis Rodriguez was convicted following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. That his conviction should be reversed because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to warrant a conviction. score. When the DEA arranged a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1223.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Matthew P. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. With him on the brief were Terence P. NSK Ltd. and NSK Corp. (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-5491a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gardiner argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellants. With him on the brief were David W. Are licensed by the United States Bureau of Alcohol. Are unconstitutional Bills of Attainder. Is entitled the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3337.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Monarch was required by the bankruptcy court. Monarch belatedly realized that this was a perfect opportunity to assert claims that both its pre petition and post petition expenses were actually secured by a common law bailee's or warehouseman's lien on the jet fuel. The amount in dispute at the present juncture is Monarch's claim for post petition expenses of $36. That Monarch was not entitled to a lien on the jet fuel in the first place. I. The facts in this case are essentially undisputed. Monarch's responsibilities No. 03 3337 3 were twofold: supplying fueling services for Midway's aircraft at Midway airport (which included refueling and defueling the aircraft and transporting the fuel from Midway's tanks to its aircraft in Monarch's own tanker trucks). It also provided that the fuel tank facilities in which Midway's fuel was stored were owned by the City of Chicago and leased to (and controlled by) Midway. Monarch was owed approximately an additional $37. The disputed proceeds were placed in escrow pending determination of the validity of Monarch's claimed lien.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5491a.html">NAVEGAR, INC. V. US<BR></A><BR>
Gardiner argued the cause and was on the </P> <P>briefs for appellants.</P> <P> Mark B. With him on the brief </P> <P>were David W. Are licensed by the United States </P> <P>Bureau of Alcohol. Are unconstitutional Bills of </P> <P>Attainder.</P> <P> Both the appellants and the government filed cross motions </P> <P>for summary judgment on both of the constitutional chal </P> <P>lenges to the Act. Is entitled the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/95-3000.man.html">MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000)<BR></A><BR>
We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21E73740255565E188256E5A00707BA8/$file/0030232.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 849 (1997) (stating that an estimated 200 million people were expected to use the Internet in 1999). In sharp contrast to traditional mass marketing where the target audience is constantly exposed to advertisements in which they have no interest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/95-3000.man.html">MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000)<BR></A><BR>
We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1396.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Marc W. Of counsel on the brief were Duane H. With him on the brief were David T. Of counsel were Ellen A. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA5MzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0933-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was a member of this panel. Are issues not easily resolved by reference to existing state law. Because we agree with the district court that ITC lacks standing to pursue a false advertising claim against Although the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014488.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ronald Marshall and John Anderson were also convicted of related charges. MARSHALL were also convicted of: (1) conspiracy to import drug paraphernalia. The Government also introduced physical evidence seized from drug dealers who were followed back to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1400.html">ABBOTT LABORATORIES V. BAXTER PHARMACEUTICALS<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Edward L. <u>Peggy Balesteri</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Blake T. Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David T. Cass</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Thomas S. Its presence in an anesthetic is harmful.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>HF also etches glass. Line height:200%'>Baxter filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposing to market generic sevoflurane.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Baxter s proposed product is a compositi
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE0D098EFE5C3CF288256A70007B9158/$file/0030232.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 849 (1997) (stating that an estimated 200 million people were expected to use the Internet in 1999). In sharp contrast to traditional mass marketing where the target audience is constantly exposed to advertisements in which they have no interest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0752n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His asking price was below the face value of the tickets. The two purchasers were undercover Lexington police officers. Peddling is recognized as an occupation under The Council of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Governm ent am ended § 15 1.1(2) of the Code of Ordinances. Alleging that he was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTE0ODhfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-1488_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Appellant Luis Rodriguez was convicted following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. That his conviction should be reversed because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to warrant a conviction. score. When the DEA arranged a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1977.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1994 is amended as follows: Page 26. Line 6 should read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/021947P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004131.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Joe Tony Simmons challenges his convictions for concealing goods that were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/01-5223a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were David M. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: These are four consolidated cases on appeal from the judgment of the district court sustaining regulations of the National Park Service governing concession contracts in the National Park System. Many of the issues are tied to the history of the National Park System and the functions concessioners perform in the operation of the parks. The history begins with the discovery of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul19/03-20984-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Members of the Hegna family have attempted to collect a default judgment against property previously owned by Iran and currently held by the United States. Although those receiving partial payments do not have to relinquish as many
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/943666P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Two 1930 era Mercedes Benz Roadsters (of which a total of 114 were ever manufactured). There were thousands of loose parts. Which were no longer manufactured and which were themselves extraordinarily rare. One of the automobiles and some of the parts repossessed from Gohlike were allegedly owned by the Estate of Herman Quante (Quante Estate). By late 1987 or early 1988 the vehicles and parts were worth over three million dollars. Finding that because a condition precedent was not satisfied. The sellers were not obligated by the contract. The trial was conducted from February 28. The court permitted the fraud claim to be tried to the jury to forestall the necessity for a later trial in the event the 3 fraud dismissal was reversed on appeal. First Bank contends the relevant market was the market of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-1147.htm">99-1147 -- ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY V. FARM CREDIT BANK OF WICHITA -- 09/13/2000<BR></A><BR>
This process is commonly referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5223a.html">AMFAC RESORTS, L.L.C V. U.S. DEPT OF INTERIOR<BR></A><BR>
Geller argued the cause for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul19/03-10994-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Members of the Hegna family have attempted to collect a default judgment against property previously owned by Iran and currently held by the United States. Although those receiving partial payments do not have to relinquish as many
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2031p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. At issue in this case is the application of regulatory provisions of the Waterfront Commission Compact (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1547.html">NSK V. KOYO<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel were <U>Matthew P. With him on the brief were <U>Peter O. Of counsel was <U>Elizabeth C. With him on the brief was <U>Donald J. Of counsel was <U>Christine H. With her on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Stephen J. With him on the brief was <U>Merritt R. With him on the brief were <U>Terence P. Of counsel were <U>Wesley K. The <U>Remand Results</U> were subsequently affirmed by the Court of International Trade in their entirety. <U>See</U> <U>NSK</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/022894P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by the Washington Post Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company. Purdy1 from appropriating Internet domain names2 that incorporate and are confusingly similar to their trademarks and servicemarks. Purdy was later found in contempt and fined for violating the injunctions. I. Both the common law and Congress have provided protection to the holders of recognized trademarks to prevent others from appropriating or copying them and taking advantage of the owner's good will for their own benefit. One legislative purpose of that act was to ensure that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/995614.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from orders enter ed by the District Court after a trial concerning the right to use the mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19969249.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendant cross appellant appeals the district court's decision to grant the insured's motion for summary judgment on the question of coverage under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19969249.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Honorable Stanley Marcus was a U.S. When this appeal was argued and taken under submission. Plc (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-9249.man.html">ELAN PHARM. RESEARCH CORP. V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU (6/26/1998, NO. 96-9249)<BR></A><BR>
Plc (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1933DEAB1ACA07CF88256CE70081CAFC/$file/0116269.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He contends that certain discounts are prohibited kickbacks. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. He asked Chicago Title about its fees for escrow services and was 3656 LANE v. This price quote was wrong. As it was based on a custom in another part of the state. Lane's fees should have been $1200 without the split. At closing the final cost for escrow fees was actually $900. The reason the escrow fees were not $1200 is the focus of this dispute. RFC is a repeat user of escrow and title insurance services.1 As a result. RFC's standing agreement with Chicago Title provides that RFC will receive title insurance for 60% of Chicago Title's standard price and RFC's cost for escrow fees will be a flat $300. It is undisputed that the discussions between RFC and Chicago Title included discussions over the volume of expected orders. Although there is no evidence that RFC generally passes any escrow fee savings along to the buyers of its properties. His complaint alleges that the flat rate arrangement between RFC and Chicago Title for escrow fees is an illegal
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-9249.man.html">ELAN PHARM. RESEARCH CORP. V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU (6/26/1998, NO. 96-9249)<BR></A><BR>
Plc (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. With whom DyKemata Gossett PLLC was on brief for appellees. Were on brief for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. GRG was the Navy's prime contractor for this project. Among the specifications were the requirements that the glass provide 39% visible light transmission and .005% ultraviolet light transmission. Paragraph 1.3 of the prime contract specifications provided that the glass was to be delivered to the site in unopened containers. Was not to be unpacked until needed for installation. The glass was packed and shipped by Falconer Lewiston. Guardian is alleged to be the successor in interest to Falconer Glass. 2 The glass was delivered to JRS in or about April. Glass panes which had recently been installed were stained with rainbow like marks. The staining did not show when the glass was taken out of its packaging. These requirements were set forth in the defendants'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061789np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 in payment when the equipment was sold. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We are convinced that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We will affirm both orders of the District Court. Money is recognized as a permissible subject of conversion. PMI's contention that the settlement agreement into which the parties entered precludes Key's claim for conversion is without merit. While it is true that we are generally cautious about permitting tort recovery based on contractual breaches. Ct. 2002) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B4EAC42C9C5754588256E5A00707C20/$file/9956933.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW Plaintiffs appellants Aqua Tri and Pool Water Products (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0200p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/428F9664DECF516888256A9C008197DE/$file/9956933.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW Plaintiffs appellants Aqua Tri and Pool Water Products (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1068.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was Helena Dorothy Sullivan. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Yelena Slepak. Section 1520(c)(1) allows the reliquidation of goods previously entered into the United States that were misclassified based upon a mistake of fact. The court determined that Brother was not entitled to relief under section 1520(c)(1) because. Customs later reviews the entry and makes its determination about whether the amount of duty deposited is correct that is. Liquidation of an entry is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0832p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are revisiting this products liability case after a third trial on the alleged defectiveness of a forklift for its manufacturer's failure to equip it with an operator restraint system. Our task is to determine whether the district court's evidentiary rulings. Were consistent with Pennsylvania's crashworthiness law and its public policy which underlies it. I. John Habecker was a civilian employee of the New Cumberland Army Depot when the forklift he was backing down a ramp tumbled from the side of the ramp. Habecker was tragically killed when the forklift fell on top of him. The forklift was manufactured in 1977 by Clark Equipment Company and was not designed with an operator restraint system (ORS). Alleging that the forklift was defective due to the lack of an ORS. Asserting that such evidence was inadmissible in a products liability suit governed by Pennsylvania law. We are confident that it will carefully limit the admissibility of such evidence on re trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1813.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A</U> and <U>Calvesbert Law Offices PSC</U> were on brief for appellent. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1905p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Under the Carmack Amendment for loss of merchandise in transit.1 Preston concedes that it is liable to Burton and thus only damages are in dispute. As follows: The basic facts in this matter are not in dispute. Those eighty one cases were not delivered to Burton's customer. A replacement shipment of eighty one cases of cigarette papers was delivered to Anpesil and Burton received payment in full. The only dispute is whether Burton's damages in this case should be the market value of the goods or the replacement cost of the goods. 1. S 14706 but previously was codified at 49 U.S.C. That Anpesil paid an invoice price for the replacement goods which was for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-1094a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard R. With him on the brief were Daniel M. Mikula were on the brief for intervenors Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. Campbell was on the brief for intervenor Nation al Organization for Women. Hunnicutt were on the brief for amici curiae Radio One. Whitehouse were on the brief for amici curiae The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and National Council of the Churches of Christ. Curran and Eduardo Pena were on the brief for amicus curiae Congressional Black Caucus. We hold first that the Broadcasters fail to substantiate their claim that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. Thus creating a race based classification that is not narrowly tailored to sup port a compelling governmental interest and is therefore unconstitutional. Because we find that the unconstitutional portion of the rule is not severable. Necessity will be served by the granting of such application.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-3083a.html">U.S. V. ROBERT HITT<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2517.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Outboard Marine Corporation is in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Among its holdings are the assets. In what is known as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CD7A8DD52CFE61B88256E5A00707AE1/$file/9916927.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Department of Interior is obligated to 4556 use water from the Colorado River system to supply holders of present perfected rights. Contending that the contract is ambiguous and that a trial is necessary to establish its entitlement to the full water allotment under the contract. Federal law governs the interpretation of contracts where the United States is a party. Formally included within the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District . . . [except] those lands that are within the external boundaries of the District but which have been excluded from the District pursuant to resolution or any order of a court of proper jurisdiction . . . . There is no judicial decision excluding the areas belonging to holders of PPRs from the scope of the definition of water delivered to the District.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTkxNTVfc28ucGRm/03-9155_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4209_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
What is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6023.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <hr> Gregory Hunt was indicted on 65 counts of securities forgery and 41 counts of money laundering. He was sentenced to serve 63 months in prison and to pay millions of dollars in restitution and forfeiture. The statute under which he was charged. So far as the bank was concerned. Hunt was authorized. Hunt was not authorized to withdraw funds for purposes of hedging or speculating in agricultural commodities on behalf of Orienta. All 65 checks listed Orienta's name and address and were signed in ink by Mr. The first 5 were payable to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-5121.htm">96-5121 -- BPM INTERNATIONAL LTD. V. ALEXANDER -- 12/03/1997<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Robert A. No promissory note for the $2500 loan was ever signed. The $2500 loan was not repaid. Did not notify BPM or Patricia Sutton that it was electing to enforce the $2500 debt by resorting to the judgment. <p> In November 1994. Was released. Alexander was not relieved from his obligation. <p> We review a district court's decision to deny a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. <u>See</u> <u>Stubblefield v. That there was no evidence that Sand had presented the $2500 obligation for payment. Alexander argues that the UCC's presentment requirement is inapplicable here because the $2500 obligation is not represented by a negotiable instrument. It is proper to do so in this case. The $2500 obligation here could easily have been made negotiable. The debtor is entitled to object. Patricia Sutton were deemed to have defaulted on the $2500 obligation. No notice was supplied. No sale was held. Was therefore entitled to separate notice of default.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034847np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
HUB's principal argument is that the District Court erred in its ruling because 2 Golub was an employee with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1219.html">THE HOOVER COMPANY V. ROYAL APPLIANCE MG. CO.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Patrick R. S mark was likely to cause confusion with Hoover
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4052.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0171p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A portion of the jury's verdict relating to incentive compensation was later stricken by the district court pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Determined that the transition from the former to the latter occurred when the jury's verdict was entered by the court as a judgment on May 16. Central was party to an Exclusive Agency and Distributor Agreement (referred to by the parties as the Alliance Agreement) with a division of the Monsanto Company called the Solaris Group. If either Scotts or Central was successful in purchasing the Solaris Group. The specific percentages that each company would have of each brand would depend on which company succeeded in purchasing the Solaris Group. It was never reduced to writing. It was allegedly an oral agreement. With the particulars
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1055.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for petitioner.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1261.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief was Michael J. With him on the brief were Eric L. Of counsel on the brief was James M. With him on the brief were Vinent K. Of counsel was Jeffrey D. With him on the brief were David H. 1304 2 Background LGE is the owner of patents relating to personal computers. A system for ensuring that outdated data is not retrieved from memory). 379 (claiming a system and method for ensuring that outdated data is not retrieved from memory). Intel is authorized to sell these products to defendants under an agreement with LGE. Although it was licensed to sell the products to them. They were not authorized under that agreement to combine the products with non Intel products. It determined that there was no implied license to any defendant. LGE's rights in any system claims were exhausted. The court also found that LGE was contractually barred from LGE did not assert patent rights in the microprocessors or chipsets 05 1261. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). Summary judgment is appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/001125.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A commercial tenant at the corporate center whose offices were damaged by the fir e. Is the other appellant.1 American District T elegraph Company of Pennsylvania and ADT Security Systems. Federal jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U.S.C. Eugene Krueger was one of two general partners in Holmes and was the sole shareholder of Krueger Associates at the time of the fire. We refer to appellants as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022069.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 seeking a declaration that Travelers was obligated to participate in the defense of Nissan Computer Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1341.html">STX, LLC V. BRINE, INC.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>James Archibald</U>. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Rudolf E. With him on the brief were <U>Mark A. With him on the brief were <U>D. ) is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Co appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Is the owner of the 947 patent. Is directed to a head frame for a lacrosse stick to which netting is attached for catching and throwing the ball during play. Central to this appeal is Claim 1. Both defendants responded that the 947 patent was invalid and unenforceable: Warrior on the ground that STX violated the on sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Was indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The motion was supported by documentary evidence. STX responded that Warrior and Brine had failed to prove a prior sale and that the allegedly barring activity was merely a request. Concluding that not only had STX failed to show a genuine issue of material fact suggesting the patented invention was not on sale prior to the critical date. That the defendants had shown by clear and convincing evidence that STX s product was on sale and in the public domain prior to that date.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0266p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages based on a contract price/market price differential. Administrative decisions which denied the plaintiff's claims for actual damages are entitled to res judicata effect. Entered into a long term coal supply contract (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/036057P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1996/96a1478p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will preclude the purchaser from seeking damages against the manufacturer of a product sold to the purchaser by the distributor. We conclude that because the proposed agreement between the distributor and the purchaser was never accepted by the distributor. The manufacturer is not protected by the limitation of damages provisions. The jury's award of damages should not have been based on or limited to the terms contained in the written agreement. We will vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on liability and damages. Electra was an independent distributor of Chelgraph products. Nowhere in the forms was Chelgraph mentioned or even identified.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981155.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 1 the attorneys listed as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A772AFA016AB9BD388256A2B005CE63D/$file/9916927.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Department of Interior is obligated to 4556 use water from the Colorado River system to supply holders of present perfected rights. Contending that the contract is ambiguous and that a trial is necessary to establish its entitlement to the full water allotment under the contract. Federal law governs the interpretation of contracts where the United States is a party. Formally included within the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District . . . [except] those lands that are within the external boundaries of the District but which have been excluded from the District pursuant to resolution or any order of a court of proper jurisdiction . . . . There is no judicial decision excluding the areas belonging to holders of PPRs from the scope of the definition of water delivered to the District.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972025.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 6 counsel's name is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C58EEDE5499DB9F988256E5A00707B7F/$file/9956856.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: As is often true in the field of intellectual property. The question that we decide today is whether 35 U.S.C. § 261 of the Patent Act. Matsco Financial Corporation (Petitioners) have a security interest in a patent developed by Cybernetic Services. The patent is for a data recorder that is designed to capture data from a video signal regardless of the horizontal line in which the data is located. Petitioners' security interest in the patent was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1901p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was designed to reduce the accumulation of wax in the shafts of oil wells. One of which was Pennzoil's refinery in Pennsylvania. We will reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Pennzoil is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. The two Colelli entities are Ohio corporations with principal places of business in Ohio. Colelli is in the oil well maintenance business. Approximately sixty percent of the Penn grade and Corning grade crude oil produced by the Ohio producers was sold and shipped to Pennsylvania refineries. One of these was Pennzoil's Rouseville refinery. The other was a refinery owned by Witco in Bradford. The remaining oil was sold to a refinery in West Virginia. Once the issue was brought to his attention. The other defendants are Ohio corporations with principal places of business in Ohio. Which was granted. The two appeals have been consolidated. Although the propriety of personal jurisdiction is in dispute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1094a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were </P> <P> . Argued the cause for respondents. </P> <P>With him on the brief were Daniel M. Mikula were on the brief for intervenors </P> <P>Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. Campbell was on the brief for intervenor Nation </P> <P>al Organization for Women. Hunnicutt were on the </P> <P>brief for amici curiae Radio One. Whitehouse were on the </P> <P>brief for amici curiae The Leadership Conference on Civil </P> <P>Rights and National Council of the Churches of Christ. </P> <P>Andrew J. Curran and Eduardo Pena were on the </P> <P>brief for amicus curiae Congressional Black Caucus.</P> <P> . </P> <P> We hold first that the Broadcasters fail to substantiate </P> <P>their claim that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. Thus creating a </P> <P>race based classification that is not narrowly tailored to sup </P> <P>port a compelling governmental interest and is therefore </P> <P>unconstitutional. Because we find that the unconstitutional </P> <P>portion of the rule is not severable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3470A4422044C7EA88256A6200834EE3/$file/9956856.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: As is often true in the field of intellectual property. The question that we decide today is whether 35 U.S.C. § 261 of the Patent Act. Matsco Financial Corporation (Petitioners) have a security interest in a patent developed by Cybernetic Services. The patent is for a data recorder that is designed to capture data from a video signal regardless of the horizontal line in which the data is located. Petitioners' security interest in the patent was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993133.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. INTRODUCTION The issue presented in this case is whether the exercise by General Motors Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-2089.htm">02-2089 -- NISH V. RUMSFELD -- 11/14/2003<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs are non profit agencies representing the blind and severely handicapped. Have preferred status in the provision of goods and services to the federal government. The mess hall contract was then awarded to NMCB. Plaintiffs contend that (1) the interpretation of the RS Act by the Department of Education (DOE) is not entitled to deference. (2) the RS Act does not apply here because the KAFB mess hall is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3770.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of which we will refer to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2083_039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Pine Tar Incident It's undisputed: George Brett was a great baseball player. Was richly deserved. Many who love baseball will always think of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041979p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412485.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wyman and Lee contend the evidence was insufficient to convict them of mail fraud and contend that the district court improperly admitted hearsay and opinion testimony during trial. Contending that they were sentenced in violation of United States v. 1 and that their sentences were based upon unreliable evidence and factors not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Wyman was taught about implausible theories of private offset exchanges. Private offset exchanges were claimed mechanisms for individuals to access this Treasury held money. As these checks were Appellants raised this issue as a claim under Blakely v. Appellant's Blakely challenge will be treated under Booker. 3 1 written on closed accounts. The account on which the check was drawn could not provide the funds to pay for the goods. These offset checks were theoretically to be presented to the Treasury by the drawee bank or payee for reimbursement with the stockpiled funds. After the letter was sent. Included among these checks were a $121.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/94-8700.opa.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F552D4DFDE50F88B8825732A007F4367/$file/0555627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court's entry of summary judgment in Jada's favor as to those claims is reversed. The district court's entry of summary judgment as to those claims in favor of Jada is also reversed. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jada Toys is a California corporation that specializes in the distribution and sale of miniature diecast toy cars. These vehicles are scale model replicas of actual vehicles. The trademark was issued by and registered with the U.S. Mattel is also a toy company. Among its many lines of toys is its familiar HOT WHEELS miniature vehicle brand. Were not related to its HOT RIGZ mark. Among the counterclaims were allegations that Jada's HOT RIGZ mark infringed on Mattel's HOT WHEELS mark.1 Mattel also counterclaimed for copyright infringement and dilution. STANDARD OF REVIEW The review of a grant of summary judgment as to an infringement claim is de novo. . . . there are any genuine issues of material fact. Summary judgment is generally disfavored in the trademark arena.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-5006.wpd.html">CARDTOONS, L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
Arguing that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment and (2) Cardtoons does not have a First Amendment right to market its trading cards. Have caricatures of active major league baseball players on the front and humorous commentary about their careers on the back. The balance of the set is comprised of 20
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2251.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/94-8700.opa.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1390.html">MONSANTO COMPANY V. HOMAN<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1256.html">NATIONAL STEEL CAR, LTD. V. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, LTD, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David P. Illinois.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Alexandra DeNeve</u>. Argued for defendants appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Marc S. Addresses a particular type of railway car used to haul lumber: a depressed center beam flat car.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Figure 1 of the '575 patent shows a longitudinal section through one side of the car and is reproduced below.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in. Line height:200%'>The car described in the '575 patent is a ". Car because the primary structure of the car is a truss like beam element that runs the length of the center of the car between the wheel assemblies. In the front and back of the car.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Center beam cars are an industry standard for hauling lumber. Which is piled onto a floor that extends laterally to each side of the car from the bottom of the center beam and then secured to the center beam.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Canadian Pacific currently operates a fleet of center beam flat cars.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200112/00-5266a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Richard E. With him on the brief was John F. Gaine was on the brief for amicus curiae Man aged Funds Association. Because the regulation of their advertising practices was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0019p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was descriptive and that it had not acquired secondary meaning. To obtain trademark protection for the mark LAWOFFICES.1 Plaintiff is the registrant of the domain Although the specific facts of this case invo lve the designation LawOffices.net. 1999) (noting that when a trademark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948700.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.1 Appellants and Cross Appellees. The two cases were consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inc. is listed as a separate defendant in Case No. 93 CV 2938. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. 3 are involved in the restaurant business. Concluded that Defendant's rights were superior in Georgia. We remand the matter to the district court to determine if Defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act. The first such restaurant was opened in October 1989 in Winston Salem. We treat these separate entities as if they were one. 3 North Carolina. The LONE STAR CAFE mark covers both clothing items and The mark covering restaurant services was by a New York City nightclub operator. restaurant services. registered in 1981 Plaintiff's predecessor corporation purchased the LONE STAR CAFE mark from the nightclub in 1992. Which registration is now incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F5FC54966492D55688256AC600156663/$file/0055363.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0082p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eighteen full service wholesalers who are also direct distributors for defendant R.J. Are full service distributors serving grocery and convenience stores and other retail outlets in a multi state region. All of the plaintiffs are direct distributors of defendant RJR. Cigarettes are divided into four price categories or tiers. Cigarettes are manufactured by defendant RJR (Camel and Winston cigarettes). Second tier and third tier cigarettes are also produced by the major manufacturers. Their prices are substantially lower than first tier cigarettes. Fourth tier brands are produced by smaller manufacturers (including Liggett and Commonwealth) and sell at prices somewhat lower than third tier brands. Non premium brands are collectively classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/971710P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Entered into a conditional settlement agreement in the underlying state court wrongful death action in which a stipulated judgment was entered in the amount of $1. Century contends that its policy did not provide insurance for the accident because the tractor and trailer at the time was engaged in intrastate commerce. Which was limited exclusively to interstate commerce. J&T would contact each of the river terminals to determine which was offering the highest price for grain. The final destination was of no concern to him. Port Bunge ships over 99% of the corn it receives out of state by river barge.1 Once corn is delivered to the Bunge terminal. Its connection to the farmer is severed. Incoming shipments are commingled and the fungible nature of corn makes it impossible to connect any particular shipment of corn to any individual farmer. Carlson was killed in the collision. Bunge purchases corn by way of cash contracts for future delivery which provide that the farmer will ship a certain number of bushels of the commodity within a certain time frame and will be compensated at a predetermined price.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/102E2880CDD98F8488256E5A00707CC8/$file/0055363.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/99-11517.opn.html">JIM GALL AUCTIONEERS V. CITY OF CORAL GABLES (4/27/2000, NO. 99-11517)<BR></A><BR>
We agree with the district court that they do not.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/99-11517.opn.html">JIM GALL AUCTIONEERS V. CITY OF CORAL GABLES (4/27/2000, NO. 99-11517)<BR></A><BR>
We agree with the district court that they do not.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/952887P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CUSTOMER USES A COPY CARTRIDGE OTHER THAN AN UNMODIFIED NEW OR RECYCLED CARTRIDGE PURCHASED FROM XEROX AND/OR THE COPY CARTRIDGE BEING USED IS MODIFIED FROM ITS ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION. THIS WARRANTY WILL BE VOID. The Xerox Service Representative will attempt to diagnose and solve the problem on the telephone. IF THE CUSTOMER IS USING A CARTRIDGE THAT RESULTS IN A VOIDED WARRANTY AND A XEROX REPRESENTATIVE TRAVELS TO THE INSTALLATION ADDRESS TO PERFORM WARRANTY SERVICE. THE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE WILL ADVISE CUSTOMER THE WARRANTY IS VOID. SUCH SERVICE CALL WILL BE BILLED TO CUSTOMER AT XEROX' THEN APPLICABLE TIME AND MATERIALS RATES. CUSTOMER MAY INITIATE A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITHOUT CARTRIDGE COVERAGE. 2 Xerox will service its copiers that are not under warranty. Service is available on a time and materials basis. Xerox also offers a maintenance agreement which requires that Parts are included in that charge. Lasertech is an Arkansas proprietorship owned by David Marts. addition to servicing photocopiers and computer printers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/380F614624DC9691882572EB004C6672/$file/0355015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court on the alternative ground that the judgment is subject to attachment under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep30/03-50287-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bartlett ultimately A muzzle brake is a device attached to the muzzle (exit end) of a gun barrel to reduce perceived recoil and barrel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200011/97-1715b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981307.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question presented on appeal is whether intermingled goods with false or confusing markings of country of origin and fabric content are subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to § 1595a as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-50287-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bartlett ultimately A muzzle brake is a device attached to the muzzle (exit end) of a gun barrel to reduce perceived recoil and barrel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8B7D785145B8C843882571930076D8B1/$file/0271041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug26/03-50287-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bartlett ultimately A muzzle brake is a device attached to the muzzle (exit end) of a gun barrel to reduce perceived recoil and barrel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/97-1715a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE0ECB6F30D6F1478825706D0056DF51/$file/0316987.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ACRA claims that Lexmark's advertising and promotional materials mislead customers into thinking the post sale restriction is enforceable and that they actually receive a discounted price for the special cartridges. The patented cartridge is sold at a special price subject to a restriction that it may be used only once. A regular price cartridge without these terms is available1 Consumers can opt to buy Lexmark cartridges without the Prebate post sale restriction. At the higher price.2 The packaging when the Prebate program was launched in 1997 contained slightly different language: IMPORTANT! It is a violation of this agreement and/or it is unlawful to resell. The distinction drawn by Lexmark is unnecessary to our resolution of the present case. Which is not a direct challenge to the terms of the contract itself. 1 ARIZONA CARTRIDGE REMANUFACTURERS v. The company estimates that 50 percent of the cartridges sold are returned as empty cartridges to Lexmark. Cartridge returns have increased by 300 percent since the implementation of the Prebate program.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0244p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This Lease will be automatically renewed for subsequent one year terms upon the same terms and conditions. It being the intent of the parties that the term of this Contract will run concurrently with the term of the Lease executed as of even date herewith. This Contract will be automatically renewed and the term of the Contract extended for subsequent one year terms. Contractor fully acknowledges that this Contract with Contractee is a separate and distinct contract and is not associated with any other agreements. Contractor further acknowledges that Contractee is the retailer of the fuel facilty to be operated hereunder and that this Contract does not give any rights to the Contractor as a fuel retailer. That may have existed between Contractee and Contractor. Contractor agrees that all funds collected for fuel sales are the property of the Contractee and further agrees to act as the agent of Contractee in the collection and safe keeping of all monies collected for sale of fuel. Main explained that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/02/991758P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government failed to show that the defendants were a motivating cause in moving the goods in interstate commerce. D&D is a trucking business that forwards freight for individuals and businesses. Among D&D's clients is Gateway. D&D was in a subcontracting relationship with another trucking company based in Omaha. Where the merchandise was loaded onto Skyway trucks and shipped to its final destination. Once a unit is built. It is sent to Gateway's shipping area. Shipping personnel make a final check of the unit against the invoice to ensure the order is complete. The product is then sent to the staging area where it is picked up by independent carriers and transported to its final destination. Of particular import to this case is the unauthorized sale of a total of fourteen Gateway computers by the Tasys through Don's liquidation business in Sioux City. Eight of these computers were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991935.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. S.A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E5459BCD33E1E3F588257054004A8748/$file/0435868.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
NRDC further challenges the 1 Intervenors Appellees State of Alaska and Alaska Forest Association (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B05870C709ECC1EC88256EF40081A34C/$file/0235965.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether Indian tribes have sovereign immunity from an Idaho state tax on motor fuel delivered by non tribal distributors to tribally owned gas stations for sale on Indian reservations. The state is barred from re litigating the matter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Substantially all proceeds from the state motor fuel tax are used for highway construction and maintenance. When such fuels are not for the exclusive use of the United States. (b) The officer in charge of such reservation shall. Or the District of Columbia within whose borders the reservation is located. Showing the amount of such motor fuel with respect to which taxes are payable under subsection (a) for the preceding month. 4 U.S.C. § 104 (emphasis added). The amended law declared that the legal incidence of the tax was not on the retailer. Was on the distributor. 2002 Idaho Sess. To expressly impose the legal incidence of motor fuels taxes upon the motor fuel distributor who receives (as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DC97CAE36A035D388256D17008262B2/$file/0156055.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will refer to the term as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2388.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1508.html">B.BRAUN MED. INC. V. ABBOT LAB & NP MED<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-3005.wpd.html">ARST V. STIFEL<BR></A><BR>
Kern Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision: The attorneys were listed incorrectly with respect to parties represented. In this appeal we are asked to consider whether the district court properly granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Stifel Co. was to put together buyers and sellers of PCA stock on an unsolicited basis. Shoaf purchased PCA shares for himself and family without revealing to the shareholders that he was the purchaser. Stifel Co. had instructed Shoaf not to disclose his purchases to PCA shareholders because Stifel Co. wanted to remain a neutral go between and was concerned that Shoaf's purchases could be construed as recommendations. Before Stifel Co. was engaged as an accommodating broker. There is no evidence that Shoaf was privy to inside information. Holding that SEC Rule 10b 10(a)(7)(i) did not provide a private cause of action and that Defendants did not have the requisite fiduciary duty to support liability under the remainder of Plaintiff's claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-1681.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lange's appeal requires us to apply this definition. is in the business of making aircraft parts for the aftermarket. Surfaces that do this job well are made by sintering the forming of solid metal. That all requirements have been met. Further testing of finished assemblies is required. The process of experimenting and testing can be avoided if the manufacturer demonstrates that its parts are identical (in composition and manufacturing processes) to parts that have already been certified. Offered for sale was all the information required to obtain certification of several components as identical to parts for which RAPCO held certification. Lange was arrested following taped negotiations that supply all the evidence necessary for conviction if the data satisfy the statutory definition of trade secrets. One ingredient of a trade secret is that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E26A6EB9E32D86D788256E240077D3B8/$file/0315656.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Must have an interest in actually purchasing or renting a particular property or dwelling in order to allege a discriminatory violation. We also face a related question: whether Plaintiff Appellant Disabled Rights Action Committee (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1011.html">LAMPI CORPORATION V. AMERICAN POWER PRODUCTS, INC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Michael A. Of counsel on the brief were <u>G. Which is drawn to a miniature. The district court also concluded that the claims were not invalid. 227 patent is a small. Connecting element which is shaped into a housing which supports a fluorescent lamp tube 5.". The patent further explains:</p> <dir> <dir> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1197.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was <U>Susan J. With him on the brief were <U>Nancy C. Of counsel was <U>John M. Because the mark is descriptive of the relevant services. It claimed that the proposed mark is inherently distinctive. That it acquired distinctiveness and was registerable pursuant to section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. Portion of the mark is depicted with broken lines to indicate that ". The area code will change". Isler inferred that people who called on these lines were attempting to reach Dial A Mattress. Were either unfamiliar with the correct spelling of ". Application because the mark is generic for the relevant services and therefore unregisterable. The examiner found that even if it is not generic. It is ". Because there was no dispute that the (888) toll free area code designation is devoid of source indicating significance. Is the legal equivalent of the word ". Is generic for the identified service. Is generic.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE40B3EC80ABAA1D88256B7D00000031/$file/0016136.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue before us is whether the complaint in this securities fraud class action states a claim under the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation 4239 Reform Act of 1995 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-4093.man.html">DIETRICH V. KEY BANK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dietrich v. 46 U.S.C.A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/95-4556.opa.html">PLASTIQUE TAGS V. ASIA TRANS LINE, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Plastique Tags v. Alleging that the defendant carriers were liable for the shortfall in a shipment of goods ordered by Plastique and transported by the defendants. Because Plastique's evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. STANDARD OF REVIEW<p> <p> Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings. Affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <i>Celotex Corporation v. A shipper must prove that the goods were damaged or lost while in the carrier's custody. <i>See Sony Magnetic Products Inc. v. A clean bill of lading:<p> is a fundamental and vital pillar of international trade and commerce. The bills of lading at issue are not clean.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-4093.man.html">DIETRICH V. KEY BANK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dietrich v. 46 U.S.C.A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/95-4556.opa.html">PLASTIQUE TAGS V. ASIA TRANS LINE, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Plastique Tags v. Alleging that the defendant carriers were liable for the shortfall in a shipment of goods ordered by Plastique and transported by the defendants. Because Plastique's evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. STANDARD OF REVIEW<p> <p> Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings. Affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <i>Celotex Corporation v. A shipper must prove that the goods were damaged or lost while in the carrier's custody. <i>See Sony Magnetic Products Inc. v. A clean bill of lading:<p> is a fundamental and vital pillar of international trade and commerce. The bills of lading at issue are not clean.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1169.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spalding</U> were on brief for petitioner.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-3083a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Wilma A. At the time the brief was filed. On the brief were Dan Marmalefsky and Eric M. The Grand Jury returned a sixteen count indictment for alleged fraudu lent misrepresentations made to the United States Depart ment of Commerce in connection with the sale by the McDon nell Douglas Corporation to the People's Republic of China of machinery that was subject to export controls. That the prosecu tion of Hitt was therefore barred by the five year statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613267.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
18 U.S.C. § 3663A: (1) was it an abuse of discretion to assign the same restitution value to each stolen good. Regardless of whether that good was later sold by the offender. (2) was a purchaser of the stolen goods. Who was sued by and settled with the manufacturer on grounds not disclosed in the record. Robertson challenges the calculation of the restitution owed Novell and argues that Network Systems was not a victim entitled to restitution. We vacate the order of restitution to Network Systems because it was not a victim. 2 I. The company was headquartered in Utah. The order was signed Joe Robertson/ACL Learning Center. The address for shipment was that of a house in Georgia rented by Robertson's mother. The post office box was rented by Robertson. Novell has no record of how the order was placed. The address for Fulton County Educational Services was. There was no evidence that Robertson knew Sharpe's address or ever went to her apartment. Which was actually the address for an apartment rented by Lee Ann Vance.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36F1D87F2676FE1888256E5A00707C13/$file/9935818.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's summary judgment determining that the Boeing Company and its consolidated subsidiaries (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/487744B4FFBA1C5688256A9C00598EAE/$file/9935818.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The United States appeals the district court's summary judgment determining that the Boeing Company and its consolidated subsidiaries (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2239.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DeMallie & Lougee was on brief for appellant. Lougee was on brief for appellant. Sutton with whom Sutton & Kelly was on brief for Robert E. Sutton with whom Sutton & Kelly was on brief for appellee. appellee. *Of the District of New Hampshire. The machine was never returned to Luson. As the parties stipulated that revocation of the acceptance of the machine was warranted. The only matters in dispute were whether the notice of revocation of acceptance was timely and proper. Judgment n.o.v. is unwarranted unless the evidence
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/053910P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The original complaint was filed in April 2003 by Gregory and the Turners. It was amended one year later to add the other plaintiffs. The thirteen African American appellants are predominantly residents of Columbia or nearby communities. The complaint alleges further that the plaintiffs
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1044.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. were on brief for The Sherwin Williams Company. Brilliant and New England Legal Foundation were on brief for Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire. P.A. were on brief for Eastern Mountain Platform Tennis. Aluminum panels are washed with acid to eliminate grease and etch the surface. The panels are sanded to increase the profile of the surface. A layer of primer epoxy paint is applied. Aluminum oxide aggregate is pneumatically broadcast over the wet epoxy primer layer. A topcoat of epoxy paint is applied. Aluminum oxide aggregate is pneumatically broadcast over the wet topcoat. The paint system must have two important characteristics. The primer coat must adhere to the aluminum through extreme changes of temperature because the game is played outdoors on a year round basis with a heater installed under the platform to melt snow and ice. Both the primer coat and the topcoat must have the capacity to hold aluminum oxide aggregate to insure a gritty nonslip surface for platform tennis players. 3 Sherwin Williams had violated an express warranty.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1139.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PC were on brief for appellee Rey. Berry & Howard were on brief for appellants Lafferty. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0791n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Monroe Counties (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993856.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which have been consolidated before the district court for pretrial purposes. Which is in the business of purchasing such delinquent claims from municipalities in several states. Appendix references are to the appendix filed in Nos. 99 3858 and 99 3859. 4 September 1996. The City and the School District entered into a Purchase Agreement whereby existing claims and liens for unpaid taxes and sewer charges were assigned to NTF.2 App. at 517. Ltd. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2173_030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
You filed an application for a credit card and you are now eligible to receive your MasterCard.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1186.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mildred Caban with whom Jorge Souss and Goldman Antonetti & Cordova were on brief for Royal Bank of Canada. Vivian Nunez and McConnell Valdes were on brief for Seiko Time Corporation. Because Royal Bank was not a party to the underlying execution proceedings. The contempt order is considered a final decision appealable by Royal Bank under 28 U.S.C. 1291. I. The attachment order at issue here was entered on January 13. Initially Gemco was wholly owned and operated by Jos and Carmen Pascual. As was a related company. These transfers were recorded in Watch and Gem's books as intercompany accounts payable and in Gemco's books as intercompany accounts receivable. The amount owing to the bank from Gemco at the time of restructuring was $1.25 million. The award was confirmed by the district of New York on November 4. Judgment was entered for Seiko on November 12. The New York judgment was registered in the district court in Puerto Rico on December 16. Gemco's primary asset was the account receivable arising from the various intercompany loans it had made to Watch and Gem over the years.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-5011a.htm">01-5011A -- IDG INC. V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. -- 12/26/2001<BR></A><BR>
Is a member of the firm of Winstead. These policies provided liability and defense coverage in the event IDG was sued for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211570.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In th is appeal. I. BACKGROUND The relevant facts in this case are undisputed. That the phones were ready to be shipped. To transport the phones by grou nd from Motorola's facto ry in Illino is to Mia mi. The shipment was unloaded at the Cooper Miami terminal and. Where the shipment was unloaded from the truck and loaded into a stor age trailer f or the w eekend . The shipment was again loaded onto a local delivery truck. It was discovered that the Motorola shipment was not among the truck 's conten ts. The disap pearanc e of the sh ipment is unexplained. A district court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Its fin dings o f fact are re viewed for clear e rror. A prima facie case is established under the Carmack Amendment upon p roof by a prepo nderan ce of the e vidence that (1) th e good s were d elivered to the carrier in good condition. Once a prima fa cie case is es tablished . (2) that the damage to the cargo was caused b y one of the five ex cusable f actors:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/675DE340D30DFDC788256F6B00586981/$file/0057118.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a trademark case. The contest is between a large Mexican grocery chain that has long used the mark. A small American chain that was the first to use the mark in the United States. In a locality where shoppers were familiar with the Mexican mark. The chain was quite successful. Two of the Baja stores were in Tijuana. Douray and Rafid have since controlled the two stores through various limited liability corporations.1 In 1995. Which was after the opening of the Dallos' first store and before the opening of their second. It did nothing about the Dallos' store despite Grupo Gigante's knowledge that the Dallos were using
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/995355q.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Class's complaint was filed under S 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1637.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Grumman's most intriguing argument presented below as both a defense and a counterclaim is that DG illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for service of DG computers by unilaterally refusing to license ADEX to Grumman and other competitors. The antitrust claims are intriguing because they present a curious conflict. Must tolerate short term harm to the competitive process when such harm is caused by the otherwise lawful exercise of an economically potent
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1779.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gorham and Gorham were on brief. With whom Barbara Harris and Richard Galli & Associates Incorporated were on brief. Arpin is primarily in the business of moving and storing household goods and furniture. Universal is in the business of soliciting customers and accounts for moving and storage companies. Arpin notified Universal that it was terminating the contract. Seeking a judgment that: (a) the contract is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3327.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that the arbitration award was entitled to preclusive effect and thus barred B S Steel's claims for damages. BACKGROUND B S Steel is an independent distributor of wide flange steel beams (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. was on brief. Edwards & Angell were on brief. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a second mortgage on a parcel of real property located at 10 12 Lopez Street. The bank was declared insolvent and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. Because Oakville was mired in a dispute with First American regarding the aforementioned loan. Because Oakville's payments were substantially in arrears. Warning prospective bidders that an appeal was pending). The property was sold to a third party and has since changed hands. II II It is important to stress that Oakville takes this appeal strictly and solely from two interlocutory orders of the district court: Judge Skinner's order dissolving the TRO and Judge Wolf's order refusing to reinstate the injunction (and. The merits are not before us and Oakville's action remains pending 1The motion was filed on August 11. Judge Skinner was on vacation. It is readily apparent that. Its appeal is moot. It is well established that.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954556.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that the defendant carriers were liable for the shortfall in a shipment of goods ordered by Plastique and transported by the defendants. Because Plastique's evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings. Affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A shipper must prove that the goods were damaged or lost while in the carrier's custody. Relying only on the carrier's bill of lading. of lading: is a fundamental and vital pillar of international trade and commerce. The bills of lading at issue are not clean.1 bill of lading to constitute prima facie proof that the carrier received cargo consistent with the terms of the bill. 599 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir.1979) (though it was not possible for the carrier to actually count the goods loaded because of the rapidity of the loading process. The carrier was liable for a shortfall). The terms at issue in the bill of lading are verifiable by the carrier.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1044.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Gregory S. Of counsel was Meredith A. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Ada E. With him on the brief was Stephen A. Of counsel was Joseph W. A. Countervailing Duties and Subsidies If the production of goods abroad is subsidized by a foreign government. The goal of these duties is to protect American 1 Specifically. A particular batch of imported goods is referred to as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1081.html">GRAIN PROCESSING CORP. V. AMERICAN MAIZE-PRODUCTS CO.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was Marc L. With him on the brief were Nicholas N. 1997) (nonprecedential) (Grain Processing VII).<p> The district court found that American Maize proved that a noninfringing substitute was available. The court found further that this substitute was acceptable to all purchasers of the infringing product and concluded that American Maize rebutted the inference of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1073.html">TUNG MUNG DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD, ET AL. V. US, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Ltd. and plaintiff Yieh United Steel Corporation in 03 1073.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas J. Argued for defendant appellee the United States in 03 1073 and 03 1095.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the briefs was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the briefs were <u>John D. Et al. in 03 1073 and plaintiffs appellants in 03 1095.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs were <u>David A. Line height:200%'>This is a consolidated appeal by Allegheny Ludlum Corp. Provide no ground for setting aside Commerce s most recent decisions because Commerce s most recent decisions were not compelled by the remand orders.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoFootnoteText style='text indent:.5in. Line height:200%'>Another question presented by Commerce s recent decisions is whether Commerce must assess duties on all exported merchandise of a foreign producer at a single weighted average rate (calculated to include middleman dumping as well as the producer s own dumping).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We uphold Commerce s decision not to use a single weighted average rate and affirm the Court of International Trade.</p> <h2 style='line height
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031309np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge This is a tale of one company's efforts to extend the terms of its contract with another company. There is no question that the integrated contract between the parties stipulated a four year term. Nor is there any question that Wastecorp. This case is easily resolved: Wastecorp. We are convinced that our intuition was correct and that the District Court's orders should be affirmed. I. BACKGROUND ITT is a multi billion dollar. Which ITT and its predecessors have used in association with industrial pumps since 1935. Wastecorp is a manufacturer of industrial pumps with annual sales of approximately $1 million.1 In 1993. Wastecorp would not have entered into the Agreement. Soja stated that the issue of renewability was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5178.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Marta Whearley. With him on the brief was Kristine E. Of counsel on the brief were Nancie G. Contend that their imported goods were taken without just compensation. Underwriters Laboratories (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1189.html">ALLEGHENY LUDLUM CORP., ET AL. V. U.S., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>David A. McClafferty</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>John M. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Robert Nielsen</u> and <u>Dean A. Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Thomas B. Baird</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Robert S. Int l Trade 2002) (<u>Allegheny I</u>).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the Court of International Trade correctly determined that the same person methodology for calculating a countervailing duty rate is not in accordance with law. Debt relief subsidies to Usinor were countervailable.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>These subsidies included conversions of loans with special characteristics into equity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021176.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 3 the sentence is corrected to end
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021058.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The shippers have appealed. Are international metal traders. Both are incorporated in Switzerland and both are engaged primarily in the purchase and sale of aluminum. In order to have the aluminum transported to the United States. ICTS is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1222.htm">00-1222 -- LAMB V. THOMPSON -- 08/21/2001<BR></A><BR>
The Forest Service is first required to develop a land resource management plan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-13836.man.html">ALLIANCE METALS, INC., OF ATLANTA V. HINELY INDUS. (8/15/2000, NO. 99-13836)<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not err in concluding Hinely was obligated to comply with the non competition provision of his employment contract or in finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hinely had infringed Alliance Atlanta's right to the trade name Hinely Aluminum. Among the assets acquired were the Hinely Aluminum. Alliance Atlanta and Hinely also entered into a five year employment contract under which Hinely was to serve as Alliance Atlanta's president. Hinely was to receive an annual salary of $138. He was to receive a percentage of Alliance Atlanta's net sales and net profits as incentive compensation. Hinely was entitled to review any information on which the calculation of his incentive compensation was based. Or any other matter described herein ... shall be promptly referred to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3932_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Since 1990 many of these tables have featured one rather than two legs on each end. Shows the idea: Between 1990 and 1997 Bretford was the only seller of computer tables with a V shaped height adjustment system. Bretford contends that the V shaped design is its product's trade dress. The appeal presents two principal questions: whether Smith System is entitled to copy Bretford's design. Whether it was nonetheless wrongful for Smith System to use Bretford components in a sample table shown to the Dallas buyers. Which (A) is likely to cause confusion. 4 No. 03 3932 shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. ... (3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register. The person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional. Which they may do down to the last detail unless a feature of the product is protected by patent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1160.html">RHP BEARINGS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
DC argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2304.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on brief. We affirm the district court's finding that the law interferes with the foreign affairs power of the federal government and is thus unconstitutional. We further find that the Massachusetts Burma Law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal sanctions against Burma. There is one matter on which the parties are agreed: human rights conditions in Burma are deplorable. Final determination as to whether a company is in fact
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-5011.htm">01-5011 -- IDG, INC. V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY -- 12/26/2001<BR></A><BR>
These policies provided liability and defense coverage in the event IDG was sued for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1565.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1820.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Corey was on brief for Roy R. Phelan and Fitzhugh & Associates were on brief for Sun Company. Was on the property after the leak was discovered. Monitoring wells were installed and samples of groundwater were taken and analyzed. Whose name was given on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-13836.man.html">ALLIANCE METALS, INC., OF ATLANTA V. HINELY INDUS. (8/15/2000, NO. 99-13836)<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not err in concluding Hinely was obligated to comply with the non competition provision of his employment contract or in finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hinely had infringed Alliance Atlanta's right to the trade name Hinely Aluminum. Among the assets acquired were the Hinely Aluminum. Alliance Atlanta and Hinely also entered into a five year employment contract under which Hinely was to serve as Alliance Atlanta's president. Hinely was to receive an annual salary of $138. He was to receive a percentage of Alliance Atlanta's net sales and net profits as incentive compensation. Hinely was entitled to review any information on which the calculation of his incentive compensation was based. Or any other matter described herein ... shall be promptly referred to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3DF703F416DC0608882570F40006DDCF/$file/0117424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bea) conclude that the case is ripe for adjudication. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice. Brought suit in federal district court in diversity against La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1227.html">PILLOWTEX CORP. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief was John M. With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Beth C. With him on the brief was John B. We affirm. <p> BACKGROUND<p> The merchandise at issue is comforters with 100% cotton outer shells that are stuffed with white duck down. The outer shells of the comforters do not have any detail work such as embroidery. <p> Heading 9404 of the HTSUS provides in pertinent part:<p> 9404 Mattress supports. Piping exceeding 6.35 mm or applique work.<p> 9404.90.90 Other. <p> <p> Under subheadings 9404.90.80 and 9404.90.90 are statistical suffixes that contain the following language:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1067p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in an action brought by the Secretary of Labor (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014155.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Customs officials at Dulles Airport stopped a shipment of eighty three carpets that was en route to a company operated by Hassanzadeh.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012369.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Trustee argued that Defendants had fraudulently misappropriated large sums of cash and inventory from Debtor while they were in control of its activities. I. Debtor was incorporated in October 1988. Its principal business was the manufacture and sale of T shirts. It was a closely held corporation with the sole ownership stake split between the company's president. Samuel's sister Hava Simchon was a commission salesperson but did not serve as an officer or director. Debtor was a very successful company. Virtually all of them were offshore. (STKH) was formed in March 1997. STKH was contractually obliged to pay Debtor $3. That rent was never paid. 000 and were valued in September 1997 at $107. Its revenues had fallen to $13 million and it was operating at essentially no profit. Samuel purchased products from Debtor and resold them to Debtor's customers when he was able to do so. The inventory that Samuel purchased was identified and physically segregated from Debtor's remaining inventory.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974811.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Each of whom was convicted on drug related charges following a joint trial in the West2 ern District of Virginia. The parties have raised numerous assertions of error on appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/012014P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These four claims were consolidated by order dated November 7. Which was granted on March 22. This is a case of first impression in both this and other federal courts of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Was enacted in 1958 to eliminate tax disadvantages that might dissuade small businesses from adopting the corporate form and to lessen the tax burden on such businesses. Credits are attributed to individual shareholders in a manner akin to the tax treatment of partnerships. Is a Subchapter S corporation that manufactures. Financing for these direct sales to farmers was provided through several internal divisions of T L. The IRS determined that taxpayers were liable for additional taxes for the tax years in question. The district court held that section 453(l)(2)(A)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMzNjItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3362-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The order of the District Court granting summary judgment to defendant appellant Diamond State is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this order. Diamond is required to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8DB030E8186C4EA388256E1A0082DB5E/$file/0056648.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A seed company might pay to have its advertisement displayed when searchers enter terms related to gardening. NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS have its advertisements appear on the page listing the search results for gardening related terms: the ad would be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8C0E1A6F8D3441FB88256BF3007FE31D/$file/9910411.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Larry Eames (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-6014.htm">03-6014 -- POWERS V. HARRIS -- 08/23/2004<BR></A><BR>
Who are members of the Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-4229.htm">01-4229 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 07/08/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/023647.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Adderall is a central nervous system stimulant used in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) available only by prescription 3 and dispensed to patients in pharmacy vials labeled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E850B862A18465C788256EA600528742/$file/0256509.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The other to dismiss the complaint against the remaining defendants because the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Sherman Antitrust Act's per se prohibition against price fixing is applicable to the economic arrangements between the defendants. Shell Oil Co. were once fierce competitors in the national oil and gasoline markets. Both Shell and Texaco sensed intensified competition in the downstream operations of their industry they similarly believed that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042500np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Metropolitan Management asserts that there was at a minimum disputed issues of material fact concerning whether (1) the parties intended the final settlement statement to represent the final purchase price. (3) Metropolitan Management would have proceeded to close the transaction if it was aware it would have to pay the escrow account credit. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse the District Court's judgment and remand for further proceedings. Which was granted and its unjust enrichment and conversion claims were dismissed as moot. Metropolitan Management's cross motion for summary judgment on all counts was denied. After summary judgment was granted as to the breach of contract claim. Summary judgment is appropriate if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60695.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Eisenberg was under the impression that Reid was affiliated with Bear Stearns. An investigation determined that Eisenberg's $1 million was the source of funds transferred by Reid to Lenoir's account. 000 of his money was improperly transferred to Lenoir's account at Grand Bank. The district court granted Eisenberg's motion for summary judgment finding that the source of the funds was readily traceable to Eisenberg and that Lenoir parted with nothing of value to justify his retention of the stolen property. Lenoir subsequently filed the appeal that is presently before the court. Summary judgment is appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5096.html">UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Howard N. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Marc E. 106 Stat. 2776 (codified as amended in various sections of 42 U.S.C.) ( EPACT ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>EPACT imposes special monetary assessments on domestic utility companies that have purchased government enriched uranium for the purpose of commercial electricity generation. 535 U.S. 1095 (2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This case presents the question whether the assessments constitute unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This issue was raised in passing in <u>Maine Yankee</u>. On the merits we hold that the EPACT special assessments are not direct taxes and do not therefore require apportionment in accordance with the Direct Tax Clauses of the Constitution.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1783p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The sole issue we must resolve in this appeal is whether TWA was insolvent on November 4. TWA was insolvent. We will reverse the district court's order. Eighty eight days after the deposit was made. Seeking a declaration that the $13.7 million deposit was a preferential transfer which was voidable under 11 U.S.C. (2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made. (3) made while the debtor was insolvent. The Bankruptcy Court Proceedings The bankruptcy court held a four day bench trial in February 1994 to determine whether the deposit was indeed a preferential transfer. The court focused its attention on the statutory requirement that TWA was insolvent on the day of the transfer. Following the code's guidance that a corporation is insolvent when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="120"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1578.html">PARK B. SMITH, LTD V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Steven H. Shauf</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Robert L. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>David M. Of counsel was <u>John J. Also of counsel was <u>Sheryl A. Verband der Keramischen Industrie e.V.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Gunter von Conrad</u> and <u>Kevin J. Holding that certain imported goods are prima facie classifiable as Festive Articles under Heading 9505 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS).<a style='mso footnote id:ftn1' href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/01-16495.opn.html">INT'L COSMETICS EXCH., INC. V. GAPARDIS HEALTH & BEAUTY, INC. (8/26/2002, NO. 01-16495)<BR></A><BR>
The district court<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116495.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court1 found that the contract between ICE and CLM (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1618.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Matthew W. With him on the brief were John M. With him on the brief were James M. Of counsel were Rodney G. The central questions before the Commission were whether: (1) the cameras were first sold abroad (making their refurbishment infringing regardless of whether they were repaired or reconstructed). Fuji challenges the order on the ground that the Commission erred in finding that certain of Jazz's lensfitted film packages (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5007.html">AIR LAND FORWARDERS, INC. V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 98-5007)<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Stanley I. With him on the brief were <u>David M. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p> The appellants (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-10296.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. MAUNG (9/25/2001, NO. 00-10296)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-10478.opn.html">COGGIN AUTOMOTIVE CORP. V. COMMISSIONER (6/6/2002, NO. 01-10478)<BR></A><BR>
Received two notices of deficiency from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (Commissioner) alleging additional tax due.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200010296.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Myat Maung was convicted of on one count of conspiring. Reverse the restitution order because it was untimely. FACTS To understand the crimes of which Maung was convicted. It is necessary to understand the nature of his business. Maung was the owner and president of Transglobal Shipping. Transglobal was a small company. Maung was intimately familiar with all of the details of Transglobal's operations. 2 Transglobal was a non vessel operating common carrier. Which means it did not own ships but rather was in the business of preparing goods for export and delivering them to a shipping line. After which the shipper is required to wait 72 hours before the car is shipped. Before the car is shipped. Maung's role in the conspiracy for which he was convicted was uncovered by chance. Customs Agent Andrew Diamond was asked by the Russian officers to look at six cars which had been seized at the Port of Kaliningrad. When Diamond asked Maung who had been the customer for those six cars Maung told him the customer was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983111P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Turbine argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the damages Cartillar suffered were caused by the unmerchantable condition of the engine Turbine sold to Cartillar. Much of the value of a used turbine engine is based on the number of cycles remaining before an expensive overhaul is required. The contract included implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.4 3 A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/01-16495.opn.html">INT'L COSMETICS EXCH., INC. V. GAPARDIS HEALTH & BEAUTY, INC. (8/26/2002, NO. 01-16495)<BR></A><BR>
The district court<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214131.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue is whether Siemens's refusal to sell or license patented or copyrighted goods to the appellants is an illegal use of monopoly power in a secondary market.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/973027P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is permissible. BACKGROUND The parties have largely stipulated the facts. Dayton Hudson is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in Minneapolis. The cost or quantity of goods sold or purchased is contemporaneously recorded at the time of sale or purchase. Which is prevalent in Dayton Hudson used the Last In. Physical inventories were not taken during the holiday season (November. Shrinkage (or overage) is the difference between the inventory determined from the perpetual inventory records and the amount of inventory actually on hand. There are many causes of shrinkage. Because the physical inventories were not taken at year end. The results of these inventories were taken into account in April of the following taxable year on a departmental basis by the Target stores serviced by each particular warehouse. 3 3 would overstate income because the stub period shrinkage results in a decrease to ending inventory. Which was contained in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-10478.opn.html">COGGIN AUTOMOTIVE CORP. V. COMMISSIONER (6/6/2002, NO. 01-10478)<BR></A><BR>
Received two notices of deficiency from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (Commissioner) alleging additional tax due.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-10296.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. MAUNG (9/25/2001, NO. 00-10296)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTY3MjFfc28ucGRm/04-6721_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1371.html">RITCHIE WILLIAM B V. SIMPSON ORENTHAL JAMES<BR></A><BR>
THE JUICE were filed on behalf of Orenthal James Simpson for use with a broad range of goods. After the marks were approved by an examiner in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ4MTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4812-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dow Jones appeals also from the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction.2 Each plaintiff is the originator of a widely known index. Dow Jones is the creator of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ4MTItY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-4812-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dow Jones appeals also from the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction.2 Each plaintiff is the originator of a widely known index. Dow Jones is the creator of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI1NzAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2570-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that enforcement of section 211 a is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. We reverse the grant of summary judgment because we conclude that there are disputed issues of fact. The legislature hereby finds and declares that sound fiscal management requires vigilance to ensure that funds appropriated by the legislature for the purchase of goods and provision of needed services are ultimately expended solely for the purpose for which they were appropriated. The legislature finds and declares that when public funds are appropriated for the purchase of specific goods and/or the provision of needed services. Those funds are instead used to encourage or discourage union organization. The proprietary interests of this state are adversely affected. Which should be utilized solely for the public purpose for which they were appropriated. 2. Or (c) hire employees or pay the salary and other compensation of employees whose principal job duties are to encourage or discourage union organization.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1127.html">SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972391.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was the exclusive distributor of a video gambling game manufactured by Defendant. Which was terminated except for sales of games for Collins' own use. The district court made the following factual findings: Plaintiff Drews is a South Carolina corporation with its principal place of business located in Spartanburg. Drews is engaged in the video gaming industry in the state of South Carolina. Defendant Leisure Time is a Georgia corporation in the business of manufacturing video game machines. Collins is a South Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in Greenville. Collins also is engaged in the video gaming industry in the state of South Carolina. The name of the com2 and Distribution Agreement
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0297p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I BACKGROUND VTC is an Ohio corporation that was formed on December 5. Mary Ann Rabin was appointed Chapter 11 Operating Trustee for VTC. VTC confessed that it was unwilling or unable to litigate to determine which of the two plans would survive the confirmation process. The parties met to determine whether it was more appropriate to sell VTC's assets pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 (providing that the bankruptcy trustee may use. Provided that: (1) the bankruptcy court would have confirmed the plan at least 11 days prior to that date. (3) the confirmation order would not have been vacated. [would] have been satisfied or waived.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI5MDctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2907-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: When faced with the claim that two products are confusingly similar. A person's natural reaction is to place the two products side by side. To ascertain how comparable the two goods are. This process of simultaneous observation is. The ultimate conclusion as to whether a substantial number of consumers are likely to be confused by the similarities must be reached with a focus on actual market conditions and the type of confusion alleged. Where products in the relevant market are not typically displayed in the same locations. Centering on whether they are likely to be distinguished when viewed simultaneously is incorrect. Will result in a faulty likelihood of confusion analysis. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Appellant Louis Vuitton Malletier (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1198OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC</SPAN> were on brief. DeGiacomo</SPAN> were on brief. This may not be the type of redemption agreement that section 722 contemplates have agreed to cancel that right of repossession on payment of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4ECFFB4755716A108825713E004E20DC/$file/0415581.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
15 U.S.C. § 1.1 The district court found that Plaintiffs' claims were released by the class action settlement in In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We hold that issue preclusion bars Plaintiffs from re litigating the WalMart courts' determination that Plaintiffs' price fixing claims were properly released. That Plaintiffs' claims are extinguished by the Wal Mart settlement because the two actions share an identical factual predicate. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiffs here purport to represent all merchants nationwide who currently have a contract with one or more of Visa and MasterCard's member banks for credit and debit transactions. It is necessary to 1 Unless otherwise noted. All statutory references are to 15 U.S.C. 3304 REYN'S PASTA BELLA v. This is how a typical sales transaction works. The 1.6% discount is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/14ECC72A3D2BE1C988256BDC0080619B/$file/0056217.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After Judge Paez was elevated to the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants are the trustees of the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1444.html">ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY V. ADVANTAGE RENT-A-CAR<BR></A><BR>
The owner of a famous mark can oppose the registration of a diluting mark without establishing likelihood of confusion.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This case presents the question whether such an opposition can be maintained when the applicant s mark was used in a limited geographic area before the opposer s mark became famous.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This case also requires us to decide whether an opposition under 15 U.S.C. § . To obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.</p> <p class=MsoBlockText><o:p> . The owner of a famous mark must establish that the allegedly diluting use began after the mark ha[d] become famous. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Act provides a list of non exclusive factors that a court is to consider in determining whether a mark is famous and. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1520.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Based on the Board's conclusion that the mark Muga sought to register was not sufficiently similar to Torres' marks as to cause a likelihood of confusion regarding the origin of Muga's goods bearing the mark on the application. I Muga is a Spanish winery that has been in existence since 1932 and has been selling wines in the United States under the TORRE MUGA mark since 1997. Torres is a Spanish winery that has been in existence since 1870 and has been selling wines in the United States under the TORRES mark since 1964. Alleging that the mark Muga sought to register was sufficiently similar to Torres' marks as to create a 05 1520 2 likelihood of confusion as to the origin of Muga's goods when applied to them. The Board considered the evidence submitted by Muga and Torres and concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion. It found that only the first eight DuPont factors were relevant. The Board based that conclusion on its findings that the goods of both parties were identical as described in the registration applications (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were John M. It is merely descriptive. The word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/995355.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Class's complaint was filed under S 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974342.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were tried by a jury for various offenses stemming from their involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids at real estate foreclosure auctions. Both Appellants were convicted of violating the Sherman Act. Romer was convicted of bank fraud. I. Appellants are real estate speculators who. The purpose of the conspiracy was to hold down the price of auctioned properties by agreeing not to bid against one another at auctions an activity commonly known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0271p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The name on the IRS lien notices was the precise name Spearing gave on its quarterly federal tax return for the third quarter of 2001. The first quarter for which it was delinquent. The questions now before us are whether state or federal law determines the sufficiency of the IRS's tax lien notices. In which the property subject to the lien is situated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0206p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When FMC subsequently notified the Attards that Multicom was in default and demanded the assignment of their stock. Included a letter stating that the assignment was executed under duress. The Attards had not unconditionally assigned their stock and were therefore personally liable for the balance of the 1 No. 03 5033 Multimedia 2000 et al. v. Which was perfected by FMC's possession of the stock certificates. All of the stock of Borrower [Multicom] that is then [] pledged to Lender to secure the Obligations. This conveyance will vest title in the transferee free of any claim of the Attards and free of any other encumbrance. Informing the Attards that FMC was also reserving all of its rights against them. The next significant event was on February 2. Summary judgment is proper where there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The central issue is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul20/03-20076-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063970np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will likewise dismiss Spencer's appeal.1 On January 23. Was that the NYSDTF. Failed to properly We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Spencer alleged that appellees were served a Uniform Commercial Code document via certified mail . . . upon which [they] w[ere] given thirty (30) days to respond. Spencer's allegations are plainly confined to a set of alleged violations of the UCC. Such a decision was well within the district court's discretion. There was no need to provide Spencer an opportunity to further amend his complaint because. Any further amendment to his complaint would have proven futile.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0068p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The relief available once a violation is established. (2) whether a plaintiff can recover damages to goodwill or disgorgement of profits upon showing that an advertisement is literally false or deliberately false. Individual corporate officers who were personally involved in a Lanham Act violation are immune 26 Balance Dynamics Corp. v. Schmitt Industries 3 While it is true that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1343.html">FUJITSU V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0824p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
790.19 entered by the District Court of the Virgin Islands on U&W's requirements contract claim is inadequate. Argues that the district court should have entered judgment in its favor on U&W's breach of contract claims. Its production levels did not vary substantially from those the requirements contracts were based on. Because uncontradicted evidence in this record establishes that the production levels on which U&W's obligation to maintain its own inventories was based never decreased before the plant closed in May of 1985. We also conclude that there is no disputed issue of material fact whose resolution in U&W's favor would permit it to prevail under applicable substantive law. We will reverse the district court's order entering partial judgment for U&W and its order denying MMA's cross motion for summary judgment and remand with instructions to enter an order granting summary judgment to MMA. I. Statement of Facts U&W is an industrial piping and valve supplier located on the island of St. MMA had maintained a six month supply of the materials U&W was supplying.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1194p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant bank accepted drafts drawn on plaintiff containing the direction
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul20/02-21002-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul20/02-20312-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-1059.htm">98-1059 -- ROCKY MOUNTAIN MICROSYSTEMS INC. V. PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEMS INCORPORATED -- 03/25/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Public Safety Systems. Some discussions of the facts are necessary to understand the outcome.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50833.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Worry Free asserted to the courts below that the air conditioning and heating system (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0516n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That plaintiffs' claims under the Truth in Lending Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1905.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. It appears that this is a case of first impression under Massachusetts law as to the revised § 9 204.</P> <P> Of primary concern here are revisions that altered § 9 204. Such as whether the obligations created along with the dragnet clause were of the same or similar type or class as other obligations.</P> <P> Our interpretation of the revised § 9 204 is informed by a second change to Article Nine that was also made by the 2001 amendments. It appears that this expansion of the definition of good faith has also not yet been addressed by Massachusetts' highest court.</P> <P> At stake is whether a commercial lender. Are primarily premised on CFC's unwillingness to release its first position security interest in Pride's assets. Pride argues that these contingent retail financing debts are not secured and thus that CFC has no right to insist on such a deposit before releasing the security interest. Contends that these future debts are indeed secured by a dragnet clause in its 1995 and 1996 wholesale financing agreements with Pride.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul20/03-20092-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1262.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Associates P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Cavanaugh</SPAN> were on brief. Dicker LLP</SPAN> were on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. This personal injury case stems from a horrific accident in which plaintiff appellant Daniel Smith was badly burned while attempting to light a propane water heater in his basement. The district court granted summary judgment to all three defendants.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun17/03-50833.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Worry Free asserted to the courts below that the air conditioning and heating system (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4134_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kenneth Zahner was the chief financial officer of a company named Volwood. Zahner was embezzling. He is now in prison. Volwood assigned to it whatever rights Volwood might have to shift the loss to the defendants on the ground that the defendants had failed to alert Volwood to the suspicious circumstances of the deposits. The parties agree that the substantive issues in the case are governed by California law. The district judge dismissed the claim against Northwestern Mutual on the ground that the amount in controversy was below the statutory minimum. If the judge was right about the amount in controversy. That the amount in controversy is not $17. 000 but is instead the present value of a $700. So not only was the loss to Volwood from Zahner's embezzlement of the company's account with Northwestern Mutual a meager $17. The gain to Northwestern Mutual was even smaller ($4. On the ground that it is the beneficial owner of the policy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4749_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When it was almost 2 No. 05 4749 finished. In which the trustee sought to recover Globe's last payment to RDI on the ground that it was made during the preferential period before Globe's bankruptcy filing. Claiming that it was entitled to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D1CA711BACBC336988256B96005B593A/$file/0135001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bassett argues that the reaffirmation agreement she signed is unenforceable and that Finance's collection letters were therefore illegal. She seeks damages and a declaration that the reaffirmation agreement is unenforceable. The bankruptcy court concluded that the agreement is enforceable and granted Finance's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Concluding that the reaffirmation agreement is not enforceable and that Finance's attempted collection of the debt violated Bassett's discharge. Bassett argues that the reaffirmation agreement is unenforceable because it fails to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(2)(A). Which requires the agreement to have a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/92-3024a.html">USA V. WYNN CHARLES L., JR<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/971242P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was a renown and beloved leader of the Oglala Sioux. There is a national Crazy Horse Monument under construction in South Dakota. As well as damages. 1 2 The Rosebud Sioux Reservation is located in South Dakota. A land that truly speaks of the spirit that is America. On or in connection with any goods or 54 that the Estate did not have standing to sue under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. Which (A) is likely to cause confusion. Shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 6 at 214 16. 5 The Rosebud Sioux Supreme Court then remanded the case to the tribal court for a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1222b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the joint briefs were Bruce D. With him on the brief were Jane E. With him on the brief was Jack N. Leanza were on the brief for intervenors/amici curiae Con sumer Federation of America and United Church of Christ. Is the Rule irrational? 16 2. Chief Judge: Before the court are five consoli dated petitions to review and one appeal from the Federal Communications Com mission's 1998 decision not to repeal or to modify the national television station ownership rule. (UCC) have intervened and filed briefs in support of the Commission's decision to retain the national television station ownership rule. We conclude that the Commission's decision to retain the rules was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. We vacate the cable/broadcast cross ownership rule because we think it un likely the Commission will be able on remand to justify retaining it. To review each of the Commission's ownership rules every two years: The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its regulatory reform review under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934 and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1222a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the joint briefs were Bruce D. With him on the brief were Jane E. With him on the brief was Jack N. Leanza were on the brief for intervenors/amici curiae Con sumer Federation of America and United Church of Christ. Is the Rule irrational? 16 2. Chief Judge: Before the court are five consoli dated petitions to review the Federal Communications Com mission's 1998 decision not to repeal or to modify the national television station ownership rule. (UCC) have intervened and filed briefs in support of the Commission's decision to retain the national television station ownership rule. We conclude that the Commission's decision to retain the rules was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. We vacate the cable/broadcast cross ownership rule because we think it un likely the Commission will be able on remand to justify retaining it. To review each of the Commission's ownership rules every two years: The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its regulatory reform review under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934 and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/953249P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants are Be Mac Transport Company. The FDIC is a Be Mac creditor. Be Mac received a series of loans from Metro North which were reflected in various Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings and loan documents. The FDIC was appointed receiver. Attached to this claim were some fourteen documents. FDIC then discovered that its original claim had incorrectly included an unsecured portion and that it should have listed its entire claim as secured. Stated that it was still owed $1. The requested attachment of the writing on which the claim was founded. Paragraph 9 of the claim form stated that No security interest is held for this claim except [If security interest in the property of the debtor is claimed] The undersigned claims the security interest under the writing referred to in paragraph 4 hereof . . . . That the original claim form should have listed its entire claim as secured. Which was supplied sometime thereafter. a letter with an offer to settle the claim. proposing an offer of settlement. later.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzNDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0344-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was decided by a two judge panel. The resulting settlement was the largest in 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 the history of antitrust law. Defendants agreed not to tie their debit and credit products together and to pay more than $3 billion to plaintiffs in exchange for the release of any and all claims that were or could have been filed against defendants or their member banks (non parties in this action) based on the conduct alleged. Was an Visa and MasterCard are national bank card associations. The discount fee is determined by the acquiring institution. Economics demands that the discount fee be greater than the interchange fee the acquiring 3
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1222b.html">FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Cappuccio argued the cause for petitioners.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1222a.html">FOX TELEVISION STATIONS V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Cappuccio argued the cause for petitioners.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct96/95-4444.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0364p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. Was enacted in 1998 and proscribes the sale of products that may be used to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul20/01-21114-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1228.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Talley and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. The assets were held in Pinez's brokerage account with Lehman Brothers. The background facts are essentially undisputed. Who was chairman of Centennial Technology. The reason was fraudulent bookkeeping by Pinez. The vice chairman of the board told Pinez the next day that Pinez would likely have to leave if the company had to restate its earnings. Pinez's apparent purpose was to ensure that he would have the necessary funds to cover his $5 million margin account debt with Lehman Brothers even if the market price of his Centennial stock collateral fell sharply and led Lehman Brothers to demand immediate payment of the debt. As it was entitled to do under the margin account agreement. What matters here is that the put options that Pinez acquired became assets held in his Lehman Brothers margin account. Pierce asked whether Pinez was in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul20/02-21311-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct96/95-4444.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911517.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Gall is a for profit corporation that auctions real and personal property in the Miami area and throughout Florida. The City issued three citations to Gall for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1126.html">TORRINGTON V. US<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Larry Hampel and Roberta Kienast Daghir. With her on the brief were James J. With him on the brief were James M. With her on the brief was David A. Of counsel was Adam H. That court upheld a determination by the International Trade Commission that imports of bulk and consumer tissue paper from China are materially injuring the domestic tissue paper industry. Although this case is a complex one that is close on several issues. We are persuaded that the Commission's decision is supported by substantial evidence. I This case began with an investigation instituted in response to allegations that imports of tissue paper from China are materially injuring the domestic tissue paper industry. The Department of Commerce issued a final determination that tissue paper from China is being sold at less than fair value in the United States. The Commission issued its final determination that the domestic industry is being materially injured by the dumped imports. Because the commissioners were evenly divided on the issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1837.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lanham</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062661p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because Feesers failed to show that it was in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1477.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was James S. Of counsel was Helena D. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Sheryl S. With him on the brief was Joseph M. Which contains 1% beta carotene and is used as a food colorant. Is classified under subheading 3204.19.35 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1250p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint of Vetrotex for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because it is no |
