Appellants Trinity Park, L. P. and Classic Communities, Inc. (hereafter, collectively Trinity) are the developers of a residential housing project known as Trinity Park, which consists of 42 houses in a subdivision located in respondent City of Sunnyvale (City). The City‟s 2007 approval of the Trinity Park development was conditioned upon compliance with the City‟s below market housing ordinan

David Wilson originally brought suit against defendants-appellees the City of Chicago, a municipal corporation, and Detective Luke Daly, star No. 21064 (defendants or as named), related to an incident which resulted in Detective Daly shooting Wilson while in an interview room at police headquarters. Following trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. Wilson appealed; during the pend

[¶1] This is the second appeal in a dispute between adjacent owners of shorefront land in York Harbor. See Britton v. Dep’t of Conservation (Britton I), 2009 ME 60, 974 A.2d 303. In Britton I, we held that if a wharf extending in front of the tidal flats of adjacent property injures the adjacent landowners’ enjoyment of their riparian rights, the Wharves and Weirs Act, 38 M.R.S. § 1026 (2010

[¶1] Maureen L. (Hawksley) Gerow appeals from a decision of the District Court (Ellsworth, Staples, J.) granting Richard W. Hawksley’s motion to enforce a divorce judgment. Gerow argues that the motion is barred by the doctrine of laches because it was filed nearly five years after the entry of the divorce judgment. She also argues that the order constitutes an impermissible modification of the

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of appellee the City of Mansfield in a suit by appellant Valerie Mantos challenging the City’s acquisition of 105 acres of real property, and subsequent sale of part of that property, on the ground that the City’s actions violated the Texas Open Meetings Act. Mantos brings fifteen issues challenging the grounds upon which the City sought summ

UHS of Delaware, Inc. (UHS) appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict of $2.4 million in favor of Mary Masters (Masters) on claims of service mark infringement under the Lanham Act and breach of contract. UHS contends that the district court1 erred in concluding that Masters was eligible for monetary relief under the Lanham Act and in upholding an award based on disgorgement of profits.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Thomas R. Hutchinson and his counsel, Joan Godlove, appeal from the district court’s monetary judgment running jointly and severally against them awarding $73,208.57 and $33,808.57 to various lawyer or law firm defendants as sanctions resulting from the underlying lawsuit. IV Aplt. App. 849- 852. On appeal, they contend that (1) the district court’s sanction order should

Plaintiffs are Missouri beer consumers suing to enjoin the now-consummated acquisition of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. (“A-B”), by InBev NV/SA (“InBev”) on the ground that the transaction violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. Relying on the potential competition theories of § 7 liability, Plaintiffs allege that the merger threatens to reduce competition and increase be

In this appeal, Johnson challenges the trial court's denial of her motion to enforce contractual alimony provisions agreed to by appellee, Wayne Ventling. By two issues, Johnson contends: (1) that the trial court erred in determining that the contractual alimony provisions were unenforceable; and (2) that she is entitled to a judgment of $142,500, representing the amount of alimony alleged to be

“People make mistakes. Even administrators of ERISA plans.” Conkright v. Frommert, 130 S. Ct. 1640, 1644 (2010). This introduction was fitting in Conkright, which dealt with a single honest mistake in the interpretation of an ERISA plan. It is perhaps an understatement in this case, which involves a devastating drafting error in the multi-billion-dollar plan administered by Verizon Communicati

Renee Finnerty appeals an order entered on March 30, 2009 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granting summary judgment in favor of defendants RadioShack Corporation, Kiosk Operations, Inc., and SC Kiosks, Inc. (collectively referred to as “RadioShack”) on Finnerty’s claims of discrimination, in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 261

A jury found in 2002 that Manuel Escalante, a police officer in Harvey, Illinois, had shot Archie Robinson without a good reason and then tried to frame him for possessing a gun. The jury awarded $25,000 in compensatory damages, for which Escalante and the City are jointly and severally liable, and $250,000 in punitive damages, for which Escalante alone is liable. (Municipalities are not subject t

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) having heretofore issued its complaint charging the Respondent Intel Corporation with violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and the Respondent having been served with a copy of that complaint, together with a notice of contemplated relief and having filed its answer denying said charges; and

These two appeals were calendared back-to-back because they arise out of the same factual complex, and the issues presented are inter-related. We consolidate them for purposes of this opinion. In A-5054-08, defendants appeal from an amended judgment entered on May 4, 2009, following a jury's verdict in plaintiff's favor. In A-5265-08, plaintiff appeals from the trial court's post-trial denial

Plaintiffs-appellants and cross-appellees Bernstein & Grazian, P.C. (B&G), and the Estate of Isadore M. Bernstein, deceased (Bernstein),1 brought suit against B&G's former law partners defendants-appellees and cross-appellants Grazian & Volpe, P.C. (G&V), John Leonard Grazian (Grazian), and Richard S. Volpe (Volpe)2 for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, seeking an accounting, an injunction an

In this case, we are asked to review the dismissal of an action seeking redress for injuries suffered in a deadly maritime accident off the coast of Mexico. However, at this time, we forego a ruling on the merits of the dismissal of this case for forum non conveniens. After plaintiffs filed this appeal, the district judge who presided over this case recused himself, calling into question the conti

Jamshid Aryeh appeals from the order (judgment) of dismissal of his second amended complaint brought under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.1 The trial court sustained respondent Canon Business Solutions, Inc.‟s (Canon) general demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that the allegations failed to state a cause of action and that the claim is b

Terry and Phyllis Price sued their former church, the First Baptist Church of Bulverde ("the Church"), for access to the Church's books and records. See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1396-2.23 (West 2003) (members of nonprofit corporation have right to inspect corporation's books and records). The Prices alleged that while the Church allowed them limited access to its books and records, it did n

[¶1] Cynthia Fayard and Galeforce, LLC1 (collectively “Fayard”) own lots in the Homestead Subdivision in Teton County. Fayard filed a declaratory judgment and injunctive action against the Design Committee of the Homestead Subdivision, 2nd and 3rd Filings, and committee members Sandra Day, Horton Spitzer and Gary Finkel (collectively “the Design Committee”), alleging the Design Committee

Reginald Whittington sued the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Foundation, Inc. (“Foundation”) for tortious conversion and replevin of a 1979 Kremer Racing Porsche 935 K3 automobile, which is on display at the Foundation’s Hall of Fame Museum. Whittington delivered the racing car to the Foundation in the early 1980s and sought its return in 2004. Whittington claimed that he loaned rather than don

This case arises out of the right of certain landlocked property owners to maintain and use a crude pathway (several hundred wooden pallets laid end-to-end) across a state-owned and regulated wetland. Defendant, Department of Natural Resources (the Department), appeals as of right the trial court’s order entering judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Glen Matthews, Carol Matthews, Kevin Matthews, Ste

The plaintiffs, Frank Naples and Karen Naples, brought this action against the named defendant, Keystone Building and Development Corporation, its successor entity, Keystone Builders and Developers, LLC (Keystone, LLC),1 and their principal, Leonard Bourbeau, alleging that their poor workmanship in the construction of the plaintiffs’ new home constituted, inter alia, breach of contract, and viol

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, “Ariad”) brought suit against Eli Lilly & Company (“Lilly”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 6,410,516 (“the ’516 patent”). After

[¶1] Since the earliest days of settlement and statehood, complaints and claims of adverse possession have occupied much of the time of the courts of Wyoming. Once again we are requested to grapple within that arena . . . . Snell v. Ruppert, 582 P.2d 916, 917 (Wyo. 1978).

[¶2] Today, we consider the appeal of Elsie L. Braunstein (Braunstein), record owner of several parcels of land tota

Plaintiff brought common-law claims against defendants for wrongful discharge, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with economic relations, and brought statutory claims of employment discrimination, ORS 659A.230 (whistleblowing),(1) and blacklisting, ORS 659.805.(2) This is an interlocutory appeal of an order denying defendants' motion t