1. Howland v. Soule Copy cite
   12 F. Cas. 743 U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California April 16, 1868
   Not cited

   DEADY, District Judge. The complainants are the proprietors of the Miners’ Foundry, in San Francisco. The defendant is the collector of internal revenue for this district From September, 1862, until October, 1865, the complainants, as manufacturers, made monthly

2. Nicholson Pavement Co. v. Hatch Copy cite
   18 F. Cas. 211 U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California September 21, 1868
   Not cited

   FIELD, Circuit Justice. This is an action to recover damages for an alleged infringement by the defendants of a patent granted by the United States to Samuel Nicholson for an improvement in wooden pavements. A patent was originally issued to Nicholson in August

3. Miller v. Marshall Copy cite
   506 U.S. 961 Supreme Court November 2, 1992 No. 92-5816
   Not cited

   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

4. Henning Corp. v. Commissioner Copy cite
   1960 T.C. Memo. 90 U.S. Tax Court May 9, 1960 Nos. 71539, 72442.
   Not cited Unpublished

   Henning Corporation v. Commissioner. Forrest K. Henning v. Commissioner. Henning Corp. v. Commissioner Docket Nos. 71539, 72442. United States Tax Court T.C. Memo 1960-90 ; 1960 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 197 ; 19 T.C.M. (CCH) 461 ; T.C.M. (RIA) 60090 ; May 9,

5. Town of Hingham v. Slater Copy cite
   98 F. Supp. 2d 131 D. Massachusetts May 30, 2000 No. Civ.A. 96-11650-RCL
   Not cited

   ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT LINDSAY, District Judge. Before the court are cross motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff (docket no. 109) and the defendants (docket nos. 122 and 129). These motions were referred to Chief Magistrate

6. Byse v. United States Copy cite
   513 U.S. 1097 Supreme Court January 9, 1995 No. 94-6934
   Not cited

   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

7. Ridgeway v. Pfizer, Inc. Copy cite
   513 U.S. 1103 Supreme Court January 9, 1995 No. 94-843
   Not cited

   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

8. Reno v. Koray Copy cite
   513 U.S. 1106 Supreme Court January 13, 1995 No. 94-790
   Cited by 1

   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted. Brief of petitioners is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, February 23, 1995. Brief of respondent is to

9. The Charles R. Stone Copy cite
   5 F. Cas. 513 U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York July 1, 1878
   Not cited

   [Affirming Case No. 2,620. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]

10. In re Landes Copy cite
    506 U.S. 809 Supreme Court October 5, 1992 No. 91-7758
    Not cited

    Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ 504 U. S. 971 ] denied.

11. Optimum Services, Inc. v. McHugh Copy cite
    582 F. App'x 879 Federal Circuit November 7, 2014 No. 2014-1228
    Cited by 2

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

12. Doe I v. Google LLC Copy cite
    N.D. California March 20, 2025 No. 3:23-cv-02431
    Not cited

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN DOE I, et al., Case No. 23-cv-02431-VC Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER v. BRIEFING GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 164 Defendant. The Court apologizes for the delay. This is a difficult

13. Sims v. United States Copy cite
    W.D. Wisconsin March 20, 2025 No. 3:24-cv-00909
    Not cited

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DAEMONTE SIMS, Plaintiff, v. OPINION and ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 24-cv-909-jdp U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants. Plaintiff

14. Pearson v. CITY OF BIG LAKE, MINN. Copy cite
    689 F. Supp. 2d 1163 D. Minnesota February 25, 2010 No. Civil 08-1370 (JRT/FLN)
    Not cited

    MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. Plaintiffs Todd Pearson, Mark Pearson, and Andrew Rick (collectively, “plaintiffs”), were officers in the City of Big

15. Casillas v. Clark Copy cite
    Ninth Circuit March 25, 2025 No. 23-2213
    Not cited Unpublished

    NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCO ANTONIO CASILLAS, No. 23-2213 D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 2:21-cv-01267-SPG-MAR v. MEMORANDUM* KEN CLARK,

16. Rivers v. Garland Copy cite
    D.D.C. March 25, 2025 No. 2024-0510
    Not cited

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL RIVERS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 24-00510 (AHA) v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Memorandum Opinion Plaintiff Michael Rivers brings this negligence action against the United

17. Cripps v. Schutt Copy cite
    S.D. Illinois March 20, 2025 No. 3:25-cv-00347
    Not cited

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS KRISTINA M. CRIPPS AND DYLAN DAVID-LEE CRIPPS, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 25-CV-00347-SPM AARON SCHUTT, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER McGLYNN, District Judge:

18. Young v. The State of New York Copy cite
    W.D. New York March 21, 2025 No. 6:22-cv-06555
    Not cited

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN SCHICOBRA YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. 22-CV-6555-MAV ORDER NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al., Defendants. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is New York

19. Datatreasury Corp. v. U.S. Bank, National Ass'n Copy cite
    432 F. App'x 974 Federal Circuit October 7, 2011 Nos. 2011-1587, 2011-1604, 2011-1605
    Not cited

    ON MOTION ORDER The parties move to dismiss Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC and The Clearing House Payments Company L.L.C. as parties in 2011-1587 and to withdraw The Clearing House Payments Company L.L.C.’s appeal no. 2011-1604, and Viewpointe Archive Services

20. Day v. Boston Belting Co. Copy cite
    7 F. Cas. 220 U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York July 1, 1872
    Not cited

    Examination of Witnesses—Impektinent Questions—Protection. 1. The law gives no color to the practice which not unfrequently appears in judicial proceedings, of besetting a witness with impertinent inquiries, which are not shown to have any legitimate bearing upon

Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.