Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
37 results for '* judge:"District Judge Williams"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-05-27
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Energy
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Donald Wade Cephas, Newark, DE, pro se plaintiff.
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-1295-GBW
Federal court lacked jurisdiction over wrongful termination claim where defendant was a private company and plaintiff failed to plausibly plead a claim under Title VII.
Publication Date: 2024-05-27
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dwayne J. Bensing, ACLU of Delaware, Wilmington, DE; Theresa E. Loscalzo, Dilworth Paxson, LLP, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: George T. Lees III, Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 21-1133-GBW
DMV regulations permitting the recall of vanity plates with a perceived profanity violated the First Amendment because vanity plates were private, not government, speech and the regulations constituted viewpoint discrimination.
Publication Date: 2024-04-15
Practice Area: Administrative Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ahmad J. Abdullah, Wilmington, DE, pro se plaintiff
for defendant: Shawn Carver, Erica Adams, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD. for defendant.
Case Number: 21-506-GBW
Administrative law judge erred in concluding that Social Security disability applicant possessed residual functional capacity where the determination was based on a mischaracterization of the record evidence, which indicated applicant had a much more limited capacity than that found by the ALJ.
Publication Date: 2024-03-11
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: E-Commerce | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert Karl Beste, III, Jason Z. Miller, Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Anthony David Raucci, Donna Lynn Culver, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1268-GBW
Retention holdback agreement breached where reasonable interpretation of definition of qualifying revenue meant that the acquiring company hit the revenue goals to trigger the payout.
Publication Date: 2024-01-01
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lance M. Geren, Ashley E. Macaysa, Paul D. Starr, O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue, New Castle, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Laurence V. Cronin Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Donald D. Gamburg, Immon Shafiei, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Philadelphia, PA for defendant.
Case Number: 21-1563-GBW
Court upheld union grievance arbitration award where there was sufficient record evidence to support finding that employer's discovery of employee's on-the-job alcohol intoxication after terminating the employee for other reasons constituted after-acquired evidence.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-12-25
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-cv-1387-GBW
Predecessor patents' disclaimer of scope did not restrict priority patent, which was broader in scope and whose language expressly contemplated the previously disavowed scope.
Publication Date: 2023-12-11
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael F. McTaggart, U.S. Attorney's Office, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Eleni Kousoulis, Janet Bateman, Public Federal Defender's Office, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: 23-004
Possession of firearm by felon statute was constitutional as applied to defendant previously convicted of drug distribution offenses, as it was consistent with the historical tradition of disarming individuals who posed a threat to public safety, while defendant lacked standing to challenge the statute's constitutionality as he was ineligible to possess firearms on state probation.
Publication Date: 2023-12-04
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 15-611-GBW
Court granted leave to supplement damages expert report where, although supplementation would cause defendants to incur additional discovery expenses, there would be no delay of trial and the report was critical to plaintiff's ability to prove damages at trial.
Publication Date: 2023-10-23
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Q. Webb, pro se plaintiff.
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-670-GBW
The court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the screening provision where he essentially asserted identical allegations as in the amended complaint and had therefore failed to remedy the deficiencies outlined by the court.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Trademarks
Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stacey A. Scrivani, Stevens & Lee, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Mark H. Anania, Stevens & Lee, P.C., Lawrenceville, NJ; Bobby Ghajar, Cooley LLP, Santa Monica, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Timothy Devlin, Clifford Chad Henson, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 20-1652-GBW
Finding that defendants had intentionally misled buyers and had made false representations about defendants' association with plaintiff, and that defendants had engaged in a pattern of delay and lack of representation, the court concluded that the case was exceptional both on the merits and because of the unreasonable manner in which defendants had litigated the case.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read