Filter This View

  • In re Minnfee

    Publication Date: 2009-06-10
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2009-06-05
    Court: Tex. App. Dist. 7
    Judge: Per curiam.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 07-09-0170-CV

    ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUSBefore QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.Pending before this court is the application of Barry Dwayne Minnfee for a writ of mandamus. He reques

  • January 21, 2008 | National Law Journal

    Shifting landscape of software protection

    The application of the patent laws to computer software has never been an easy fit. Many jurists view software code primarily as a series of written statements, which arguably places software sq

    1 minute read

  • Deboard v. Sunshine Mining and Ref. Co.

    Publication Date: 2000-05-05
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2000-05-02
    Court: 10th Cir.
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number:

    The full case caption appears at the end of this opinion.BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, former employees of a corporate subsidiary of defendant Sunshine

  • Commonwealth v. Childress

    Publication Date: 2002-05-17
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2002-05-16
    Court: Pa. Super. Ct.
    Judge: Bowes, J
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 175 WDA 2001

    � 1 Raymond Childress appeals from the December 18, 2000 order denying him post-conviction relief. Appellant contends that prior counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to pursue: 1) the su

  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2000-06-30
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2000-03-22
    Court: U.S. Sup. Ct.
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: No. 99-150

    Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, we decide under what circumstances a product's design is distinctive, and therefore protectible, in an action for infringement of

  • January 22, 2007 | National Law Journal

    Sovereign immunity for public universities

    The public university is sometimes the outside world's most visible representation of another state's individuality. Citizens in the university's home state expect the institution to ser

    1 minute read

  • February 2, 2004 | National Law Journal

    A case of art and law

    Washington�An 87-year-old California woman's long battle with Austria over ownership of six art masterpieces stolen by the Nazis will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this month in a c

    1 minute read

  • Khavarian Enterprises, Inc. v. Commline, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2013-05-14
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2013-05-14
    Court: C.A. 2nd
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Henry J. Josefsberg for Plaintiff and Appellant.
    for defendant: Diversity Law Group, Larry W. Lee, and Craig S. Hubble for Defendants and Respondents.
    Case Number: No. B243467

    Cite as 13 C.D.O.S. 4780KHAVARIAN ENTERPRISES , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COMMLINE

  • Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Canada ULC

    Publication Date: 2013-05-21
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2013-05-21
    Court: C.A. 3rd
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Haight Brown & Bonesteel, William O. Martin, Jr., Jules S. Zeman, and R. Bryan Martin for Cross-complainant and Appellant.
    for defendant: King & Spalding, Gennaro A. Felice III, and Paul R. Johnson for Cross-defendant and Respondent.
    Case Number: No. C065603

    Cite as 13 C.D.O.S. 5056BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. p class="ca

  • Brennan v. City of Willow Park

    Publication Date: 2012-06-25
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2012-06-21
    Court: Tex. App. Dist. 2
    Judge: Sue Walker Justice
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: NO. 02-11-00265-CV

    OPINION I.INTRODUCTION The primary issue that we address in this appeal is whether the trial court erred by dismissing for want of jurisdiction Appellants' claims against Appell