Filter This View

  • Flying J Inc. v. City of New Haven

    Publication Date: 2008-12-12
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2008-12-05
    Court: 7th Cir.
    Judge: Flaum, Circuit Judge.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 08-2319

    ARGUED NOVEMBER 4, 2008Before BAUER, FLAUM, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.Flying J purchased 53.3 acres in New Haven, Indiana in the hopes of constructing a travel plaza and various other develop

  • State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates

    Publication Date: 2009-06-29
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2009-06-26
    Court: Tx. Sup. Ct.
    Judge: Harriet O'Neill Justice
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 08-0061

    Argued January 13, 2009The Texas Constitution provides that "[n]o person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unles

  • Kings County Second Department SUPREME COURT,

    Publication Date: 2012-04-17
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court:
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number:

    Justice Bernadette BayneAllen v. Maloule (5533/10)—Granted Settle Order on NoticeAmmirati v. Arias (13193/10)—Case DisposedBatts v.

  • Pokorny v. Quixtar, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2010-04-20
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2010-04-20
    Court: 9th Cir.
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stuart H. Singer, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
    for defendant: William L. Stern, San Francisco, California, for the defendants-appellants.
    Case Number: No. 08-15880

    Cite as 10 C.D.O.S. 4839JEFF POKORNY; LARRY BLENN; KENNETH BUSIERE, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,p class="bold"

  • Menashe v. V Secret Catalogue Inc.

    Publication Date: 2005-07-18
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Unknown
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number:

    U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Judge Baer On January 11, 2005, Plaintiffs, Ronit Menashe ("Menashe") and Audrey Quock ("Quock," collectively "Plaint

  • New York County First Department SUPREME COURT,

    Publication Date: 2012-08-21
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court:
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number:

    Justice Lucy BillingsAntzis v. Metro. Talent, Inc. (101336/12)—Motion Disposed As IndicatedSchiller v. 512 Rlty. Equities (152

  • Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2010-06-01
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2010-06-01
    Court: U.S. Sup. Ct.
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: No. 09-223

    RICHARD A. LEVIN, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO, PETITIONER v. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., et al. No. 09&n

  • Diversified Carting Inc. v. The City of New York

    Publication Date: 2005-08-24
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Unknown
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number:

    U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Judge Baer On December 3, 2004, Plaintiffs, Diversified Carting, Inc., Diversified Construction Corporation and Troy

  • State v. N.I.

    Publication Date: 2002-03-15
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2002-03-14
    Court: N.J. Super. App. Div.
    Judge: Weissbard, J.A.D.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A-5073-99T4

    NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISIONSubmitted December 3, 2001In this criminal appeal we must determine the meaning of the words "willfully forsaking," found in par

  • Wurtzel v. Starbucks Coffee Co.

    Publication Date: 2003-04-23
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number:

    Judge Platt WURTZEL v. STARBUCKS COFFEE CO. — Defendant Starbucks Coffee Company (“Starbucks” or “Defendant”) moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(b)