{"count":44254,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz00Ni43Mzg0MiZzPTg3MTIyNTgmdD1vJmQ9MjAyNi0wOS0wNCZwPTI%3D&q=DESIGN+DEFECT+AND+WARNING+DEFECT&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10631638/mark-mehner-v-furniture-design-studios-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Mark Mehner v. Furniture Design Studios, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10631638,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","court_citation_string":"8th Cir.","court_id":"ca8","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-07-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24-2172","docket_id":70762615,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-11T20:16:36.555758Z","date_created":"2025-07-11T16:00:35.861678Z","score":{"bm25":76.43036}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[217808,622507,774335,786755,791097,793628,797700,866611,1297946,1814273,1824365,2099789,2222440,2669411,2784711,2799240,3038753,4018118,4195862,4310961,4360154,4548192,4584692,4662835,4688132,7804801,9834797],"download_url":"https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/07/242172P.pdf","id":11098225,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/07/11/mark_mehner_v._furniture_design_studios_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T22:39:10.775466Z","date_created":"2025-07-11T16:00:35.863407Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2698ff18b9f98c5657ac52362f7304dde30594f7","snippet":"                United States Court of Appeals\n                           For the Eighth Circuit\n                       ___________________________\n\n                               No. 24-2172\n                       ___________________________\n\n                               Mark A. Mehner\n\n                                    Plaintiff - Appellant\n\n                                      v.\n\n   Furniture Design Studios, Inc., a New York Corporation; Panera, a Foreign\n          Limited Liability Com","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11098225],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8344245/murray-v-cirrus-design-corp/","attorney":"*785James Richard Brauchle, Pro Hac Vice, Mary Schiavo, Pro Hac Vice, Motley Rice LLC, Mount Pleasant, SC, Peter Gerard Bora, Law Offices of Peter G. Bora, Mount Prospect, IL, for Plaintiffs., Karlin Erika Sangdahl, Patrick E. Bradley, Robert Alan Roth, Reed Smith LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.","caseName":"Murray v. Cirrus Design Corp.","caseNameFull":"Nancy MURRAY, individually and as Independent of the Estate of Steven Mark Murray, and Gretchen Murray, individually and in her capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Mark Murray Hayden Murray, minor child of deceased Zane Murray, minor child of deceased Shelby Murray, minor child of deceased and Samantha Murray, individually v. CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION d/b/a Cirrus Aircraft, a corporation","citation":["339 F. Supp. 3d 783"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8344245,"court":"District Court, E.D. Illinois","court_citation_string":"E.D. Ill.","court_id":"illinoised","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-09-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 17-CV-7144; Case No. 17-CV-7148","docket_id":65523170,"judge":"Gettleman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:33:00.411667Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T16:17:04.100268Z","score":{"bm25":74.94532}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8312681,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T16:06:26.206153Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T16:17:04.108384Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nRobert W. Gettleman, United States District Judge\nNancy, Gretchen, and Samantha Murray (collectively, \"plaintiffs\") sued defendant Cirrus Design Corporation in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Nancy is the plaintiff in case 17-CV-7144; Gretchen *786and Samantha are the plaintiffs in case 17-CV-7148. Plaintiffs allege that defendant i","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8312681],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6189606/barclay-v-techno-design-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Barclay v. Techno-Design, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Robert John Barclay, Jr. v. Techno-Design, Inc.","citation":["129 A.D.3d 1177","10 N.Y.S.3d 665"],"citeCount":13,"cluster_id":6189606,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-06-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62549960,"judge":"Clark, Egan, Lynch, McCarthy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:32:01.969735Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T15:25:24.050734Z","score":{"bm25":70.12528}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2031961,2083626,5489063,5535524,5537459,5676984,5688034,5753645,5753968,5771779,5809703,5846189,6043690,6071292],"download_url":null,"id":6055843,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:16:47.610016Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T15:25:24.068588Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nLynch, J.\nAppeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Giardino, J.), entered May 1, 2014 in Fulton County, which partially denied a motion by defendant Techno-Design Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.\nPlaintiff, who was employed as a maintenance worker for Codino’s Food, Inc., was injured when his arm became entangled in the gears of a ravioli machine. The machine, manufactured by","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6055843],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6189616/barclay-v-techno-design-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Barclay v. Techno-Design, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Robert John Barclay, Jr. v. Techno-Design, Inc.","citation":["129 A.D.3d 1177","10 N.Y.S.3d 665"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6189616,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-06-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62549970,"judge":"Clark, Egan, Lynch, McCarthy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:32:02.233928Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T15:25:27.686640Z","score":{"bm25":70.034424}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2031961,2083626,5489063,5535524,5537459,5676984,5688034,5753645,5753968,5771779,5809703,5846189,6043690,6071292],"download_url":null,"id":6055853,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:16:52.176277Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T15:25:27.704504Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nLynch, J.\nAppeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Giardino, J.), entered May 1, 2014 in Fulton County, which partially denied a motion by defendant Techno-Design Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.\nPlaintiff, who was employed as a maintenance worker for Codino’s Food, Inc., was injured when his arm became entangled in the gears of a ravioli machine. The machine, manufactured by","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6055853],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2723263/design-home-remodeling-corp-v-santana/","attorney":"Gilbert & Caddy, Bryce Gilbert and Randall L. Gilbert, Hollywood, for appellant., Ross & Girten and Lauri Waldman Ross, Miami; Friedman & Friedman and John S. Seligman, Coral Gables, for appel-lees.","caseName":"Design Home Remodeling Corp. v. Santana","caseNameFull":"DESIGN HOME REMODELING CORP., Appellant, v. Rene SANTANA and Maritza Torres, Appellees","citation":["146 So. 3d 129","2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13680","2014 WL 4343855"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":2723263,"court":"District Court of Appeal of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","court_id":"fladistctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-09-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"3D13-2852","docket_id":1150536,"judge":"Lagoa, Salter, Emas","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:12:53.903022Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T14:39:08.284675Z","score":{"bm25":64.16214}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1090776,1135828,1140885,1151838,1562481,1670587,1697697,1704250,1787073,1817822,1851300,1855755,1950924],"download_url":"http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D13-2852.pdf","id":2723263,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/09/03/design_home_v._santana__torres.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:28:45.793411Z","date_created":"2014-09-03T15:04:47.317382Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e6a6ac15f2f5c884c86191e7bd9d686f0c9fb5b5","snippet":"\n\n\n  EMAS, J.\n \n\n  Design Home Remodeling Corporation (“Design Home”) appeals from an order denying its motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to a proposal for settlement. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.\n \n\n\n   FACTS AND BACKGROUND\n  \n\n\n  In December 2007, Rene Santana (“Santana”) slipped and fell on premises owned by Flanco Condomini","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2723263],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6236863/statutory-mandate-to-propose-legislation-in-response-to-medicare-funding/","attorney":"","caseName":"Statutory Mandate to Propose Legislation in Response to Medicare Funding Warning","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6236863,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-08-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62601166,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:14.217966Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:11:34.039794Z","score":{"bm25":63.961674}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[90042,92942,93413,118009,9416435,9420759,9425881,9426752,9426961,9431772,9433692,9808243],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/2016-08-25-medicare-warning/download","id":6103745,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/08/25/statutory_mandate_to_propose_legislation_in_response_to_medicare_funding.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:29:52.940815Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:11:34.041830Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a1fc7b7dc764b334dbecde2052530b69c62d1259","snippet":"            Statutory Mandate to Propose Legislation in\n              Response to Medicare Funding Warning\nThe Recommendations Clause bars Congress from enacting laws that purport to prevent\n  the President from recommending legislation that he judges “necessary and expedi-\n  ent.”\nThe Recommendations Clause bars Congress from enacting laws that purport to require\n  the President to recommend legislation even if he does not judge it “necessary and\n  expedient.”\nSection 802 of the Medicare Prescr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6103745],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Recommendations Clause bars Congress from enacting laws that purport to prevent the President from recommending legislation that he judges \"necessary and expedient.\" The Recommendations Clause bars Congress from enacting laws that purport to require the President to recommend legislation even if he does not judge it \"necessary and expedient.\" Section 802 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, which requires the President to submit \"proposed legislation\" in response to a Medicare funding warning under section 801(a)(2), contravenes the Recommendations Clause and may be treated as advisory and non-binding."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8280638/glorvigen-v-cirrus-design-corp/","attorney":"Philip Sieff, Vincent J. Moccio, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant Glorvigen., Sam Hanson, Diane B. Bratvold, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, MN; and Edward J. Matonich, Darrold E. Persson, David Arndt, Matonich & Persson, Chartered, Hibbing, MN, for appellant Gart-land., Bruce Jones, Daniel J. Connolly, Daniel J. Herber, Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; and Patrick E. Bradley, Reed Smith, LLP, Princeton, NJ, for respondent Cirrus Design Corporation., Timothy R. Schupp, Robert W. Vaccaro, Gaskins, Bennett, Birrell, Schupp, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant Estate of Prokop., Charles E. Lundberg, Steven P. Agger-gaard, Bassford Remele, A Professional Association, Minneapolis, MN; and William J. Katt, Leib <& Katt, LLC, Milwaukee, WI, for respondent University of North Dakota Aerospace Foundation., Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Alan I. Gilbert, Solicitor General, John S. Garry, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN, for amicus curiae State of Minnesota., Wilbur W. Fluegel, Fluegel Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Association for Justice., Mark B. Rotenberg, General Counsel, William P. Donohue, Deputy General Counsel, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Regents of the University of Minnesota., Mark S. Olson, Michael J. Vanselow, Mark Schneebeck, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, Minneapolis, MN; and Hugh F. Young, Jr., Product Liability Advisory Council, Reston, VA, for amicus curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., William M. Hart, Damon L. Highly, Meagher & Geer P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for amici curiae Minnesota Private College Council, Minnesota Career College Association, and Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association., Robert J. Hajek, Hajek & Beauclaire, LLC, Minnetonka, MN; and Kenneth M. Mead, Baker Botts, L.L.P., Washington, DC; and Ronald D. Golden, Raymond C. Speciale, Yodice Associates, Frederick, MD, for amicus curiae Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.","caseName":"Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp.","caseNameFull":"Rick GLORVIGEN, as Trustee for the next of kin of decedent James Kosak, Thomas M. Gartland, as Trustee for the next of kin of decedent Gary R. Prokop v. CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION, Estate of Gary Prokop, by and through Katherine Prokop as Personal Representative, University of North Dakota Aerospace Foundation","citation":["816 N.W.2d 572","2012 WL 2913203","2012 Minn. LEXIS 305"],"citeCount":52,"cluster_id":8280638,"court":"Supreme Court of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn.","court_id":"minn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-07-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Nos. A10-1242, A10-1243, A10-1246, A10-1247","docket_id":65458787,"judge":"Anderson, Barry, Consideration, Paul, Stras, Took","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:07:38.895850Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:34:47.480524Z","score":{"bm25":61.518154}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8246299,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T01:49:53.440328Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:34:47.494105Z"},"ordering_key":2,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice,\ndissenting.\nI respectfully dissent. I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s holding that as a matter of law no consumer product exists for which a supplier is required to give any warning to consumers beyond written instructions, no matter how dangerous the product, and regardless of any jury findings to the contrary. The majority makes this holding even in the face ","type":"dissent"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8246298,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T01:49:53.431674Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:34:47.488401Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.\nThis case requires our court to decide whether an airplane manufacturer owed a duty to a noncommercial pilot who, after purchasing an airplane from the manufacturer but failing to receive all of the flight training promised to him as part of that purchase, died when his airplane crashed. Gary R. Prokop and his passenger, James Kosak, died when Prokop’s Cirrus SR22 airplan","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8246298,8246299,8246300],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2544801/lyncker-v-design-engineering-inc/","attorney":"Terrence G. O’Brien, Taggart Morton, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellants., Gregory G. D’Angelo Wm. David Coffey, Metairie, LA, for Defendant/Appellee, State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Transportation and Development.","caseName":"Lyncker v. Design Engineering, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Melissa K. LYNCKER, Lissa Anne Lyncker, William Henry Lyncker III and Jacob Ryan Lyncker v. DESIGN ENGINEERING, INC., Circle, Incorporated, Orleans Parish Levee District, and State of Louisiana, Through Department of Transportation and Development","citation":["51 So. 3d 137","2010 La.App. 4 Cir. 0740","2010 La. App. LEXIS 1393","2010 WL 4127401"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":2544801,"court":"Louisiana Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"La. Ct. App.","court_id":"lactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-10-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2010-CA-0740","docket_id":498733,"judge":"Jones, Murray, Lombard","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T12:48:14.565847Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T09:59:09.679749Z","score":{"bm25":59.51064}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":7425,"cites":[1129310,1793182,1805802],"download_url":null,"id":2544801,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:38:19.023829Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T10:18:18.933055Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a5b2e58f5840de00717d947c37bf0a030055138e","snippet":"\n51 So.3d 137 (2010)\nMelissa K. LYNCKER, Lissa Anne Lyncker, William Henry Lyncker III and Jacob Ryan Lyncker\nv.\nDESIGN ENGINEERING, INC., Circle, Incorporated, Orleans Parish Levee District, and State of Louisiana, Through Department of Transportation and Development.\nNo. 2010-CA-0740.\nCourt of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.\nOctober 20, 2010.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2544801],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2115467/powell-v-profile-design-llc/","attorney":"Chelsie King Garza, Abraham Watkins, Randall O. Sorrels, Abraham Watkins et al., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff., Michael W. McCoy, Fowler Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant.","caseName":"Powell v. PROFILE DESIGN LLC","caseNameFull":"Joann POWELL, Plaintiff, v. PROFILE DESIGN LLC, Defendant","citation":["825 F. Supp. 2d 842","2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121189","2011 WL 5006825"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":2115467,"court":"District Court, S.D. Texas","court_citation_string":"S.D. Tex.","court_id":"txsd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-10-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"5:10-po-02644","docket_id":1965147,"judge":"Keith P. Ellison","lexisCite":"2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121189","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T08:57:47.266724Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T20:51:59.993266Z","score":{"bm25":59.116962}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":990,"cites":[6257,12479,21707,24427,30586,40570,110170,110715,111159,111429,111824,111969,152856,152954,173892,219732,220342,458560,1443375],"download_url":null,"id":2115467,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T17:23:30.393459Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:21:29.351895Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"290331a96db85e972e6462a5afbe7228df3f606e","snippet":"\n825 F.Supp.2d 842 (2011)\nJoann POWELL, Plaintiff,\nv.\nPROFILE DESIGN LLC, Defendant.\nCivil Action No. 4:10-cv-2644.\nUnited States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.\nOctober 17, 2011.\n*843 Chelsie King Garza, Abraham Watkins, Randall O. Sorrels, Abraham Watkins et al., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.\nMichael W. McCoy,","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2115467],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8780300/lidle-v-cirrus-design-corp/","attorney":"","caseName":"Lidle v. Cirrus Design Corp.","caseNameFull":"Melanie LIDLE, personal representative on behalf of the Estate of Cory Lidle Melanie Lidle, an individual Christopher Lidle, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Jordan Feagan Stephanie Stanger, an administrator on behalf of the Estate of Tyler Stanger Stephanie Stanger, an individual Ashlund Stanger, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Thayne Stanger v. CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION","citation":["278 F.R.D. 325","2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128519","2011 WL 5346086"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":8780300,"court":"District Court, S.D. New York","court_citation_string":"S.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nysd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-11-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 08 Cv. 1253 (BSJ)(HBP)","docket_id":66046415,"judge":"Jones","lexisCite":"2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128519","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:31:32.338425Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T12:17:43.810192Z","score":{"bm25":58.956837}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2458,2710,206326,558959,583342,596397,664051,745330,2290268,2435284,2470376,5537319,8408064],"download_url":null,"id":8764021,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T04:16:27.023459Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T12:17:43.816032Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\n*327\nOpinion and Order\n\nBARBARA S. JONES, District Judge.\nPlaintiffs in the above-captioned case (“Plaintiffs”) brought wrongful death claims against Cirrus Design Corporation (“Defendant”), arising from an aircraft accident that occurred in New York on October 11, 2006. On May 24, 2011, after a five-week trial, a jury returned a verdict in fav","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8764021],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8712437/powell-v-profile-design-llc/","attorney":"Chelsie King Garza, Randall 0. Sorrels, Abraham Watkins et al., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff., Michael W. McCoy, Fowler Rodriguez, Lee H. Staley, Wilson Elser, et ah, Houston, TX, for Defendant.","caseName":"Powell v. Profile Design LLC","caseNameFull":"Joann POWELL v. PROFILE DESIGN LLC","citation":["838 F. Supp. 2d 535","2012 WL 149518","2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5677"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":8712437,"court":"District Court, S.D. Texas","court_citation_string":"S.D. Tex.","court_id":"txsd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-01-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-2644","docket_id":65978346,"judge":"Ellison","lexisCite":"2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5677","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:05:30.395934Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T04:50:24.733417Z","score":{"bm25":58.131775}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[12479,19329,28981,111969,152856,173892,219732,407792,458560,488059,547234,582775,1443375,2115467,2180816,8942844,9414431,9427738,9429579,9430020,9430838,9436874,9441923,9475544,9747945],"download_url":null,"id":8695627,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T03:53:19.033762Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T04:50:24.743546Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nMEMORANDUM AND ORDER\n\nKEITH P. ELLISON, District Judge.\nOn October 17, 2011, 2011 WL 5006825, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff Joann Powell’s (“Plaintiff’ or “Powell”) Motion to Dismiss Defendant Profile Design’s (“Profile”) First Amended Third Party Complaint Under 12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 44), and granting Third-Party Defendant HL (USA) Corp","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8695627],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8280088/glorvigen-v-cirrus-design-corp/","attorney":"Philip Sieff, Vincent J. Moccio, Heather M. McElroy, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Cir-esi L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for respondent-Rick Glorvigen, as Trustee for the next-of-kin of decedent James Kosak., Eric J. Magnuson, Amie E. Penny, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, MN; and Edward J. Matonich, Darrold E. Persson, David Arndt, Matonich & Pers-son, Chartered, Hibbing, MN, for respondent-Thomas M. Gartland, as Trustee for the next of kin of decedent Gary R. Prok-op., Robert W. Yaccaro, Timothy R. Schupp, Gaskins, Bennett, Birrell, Schupp, L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota for respondent-Estate of Gary Prokop, by and through Katherine Prokop as Personal Representative, Bruce Jones, Daniel J. Connolly, Dan Herber, Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; and Patrick E. Bradley, Tara E. Nicola, Reed Smith LLP, Princeton, NJ, for appellant-Cirrus Design Corporation., Charles E. Lundberg, Steven P. Agger-gaard, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, MN; and William J. Katt, Leib & Katt, LLC, Milwaukee, WI, for appellant-University of North Dakota Aerospace Foundation., William M. Hart, Damon L. Highly, Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for Amicus Curiae-Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association., Robert J. Hajek, Hajek & Beauclaire, LLC, Minnetonka, MN; and Ronald D. Golden, Raymond C. Speciale, Yodice Associates, Frederick, MD, for Amicus Curiae-Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association., Andrea B. Niesen, Bird, Jacobsen & Stevens, P.C., Rochester, MN, for Amicus Curiae-Minnesota Association for Justice.","caseName":"Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp.","caseNameFull":"Rick GLORVIGEN, as Trustee for the next-of-kin of decedent James Kosak, (A10-1242, A10-1246), Thomas M. Gartland, as trustee for the next of kin of decedent Gary R. Prokop, (A10-1243, A10-1247) v. CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION, (A10-1242, A10-1243), (A10-1246, A10-1247), Estate of Gary Prokop, by and through Katherine Prokop as Personal Representative, (A10-1242, A10-1246), University of North Dakota Aerospace Foundation, (A10-1242, A10-1243) (A10-1246, A10-1247)","citation":["796 N.W.2d 541","2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 35","2011 WL 1466393"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8280088,"court":"Court of Appeals of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn. Ct. App.","court_id":"minnctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-04-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Nos. A10-1242, A10-1243, A10-1246, A10-1247","docket_id":65458237,"judge":"Johnson, Klaphake, Larkin","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:07:21.990062Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:31:45.701180Z","score":{"bm25":56.354244}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8245565,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T15:49:17.223762Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:31:45.709680Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nLARKIN, Judge.\nThis appeal rises from the district court’s entry of judgment against appellants, following a jury trial, on negligence claims stemming from an airplane crash and the resulting death of the plane’s pilot and passenger. Appellants challenge the district court’s denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and for a new trial. Appellants primarily argue that they are","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8245565,8245566],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3076560/design-tech-homes-ltd-and-design-tech-homes-of-tex/","attorney":"","caseName":"Design Tech Homes, Ltd. and Design Tech Homes of Texas, LLC v. Mary Maywald and Randy Maywald","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":3076560,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Beaumont","court_id":"txctapp9","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-06-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"09-11-00589-CV","docket_id":2934035,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T10:26:17.925754Z","date_created":"2015-10-16T01:51:40.318188Z","score":{"bm25":56.30134}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[894577,1591120,1774819,1987708,2402827,2417385,2424965,2427974,2435329],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=2946&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa09%5cOpinion","id":3076560,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2013/06/13/design_tech_homes_ltd._and_design_tech_homes_of_texas_llc_v._mary_maywald.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T10:26:17.902235Z","date_created":"2015-10-16T01:20:42.853479Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c67aeda09a7d05f4e95a1ada4131d58cc3720117","snippet":"                                    In The\n\n                              Court of Appeals\n                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont\n                          ____________________\n                             NO. 09-11-00589-CV\n                          ____________________\n\n                 DESIGN TECH HOMES, LTD. AND\n           DESIGN TECH HOMES OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellants\n\n                                       V.\n\n         MARY MAYWALD AND RANDY MAYWALD, Appellees\n________________","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3076560],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7850152/lyncker-v-design-engineering-inc/","attorney":"Eugene G. Taggart, Terrence G. O’Brien; Taggart Morton Odgen Staub & O’Brien, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellants., Thomas E. Loehn, Charles K. Chauvin, Boggs, Loehn & Rodrigue, Metairie, LA, for Circle, Incorporated.","caseName":"Lyncker v. Design Engineering, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Melissa K. LYNCKER, Lissa Anne Lyncker, William Henry Lyncker, III and Jacob Ryan Lyncker v. DESIGN ENGINEERING, INC., Circle, Incorporated, Orleans Parish Levee District, and State of Louisiana, through Department of Transportation and Development","citation":["988 So. 2d 812","2007 La.App. 4 Cir. 1522","2008 La. App. LEXIS 998","2008 WL 2586788"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":7850152,"court":"Louisiana Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"La. Ct. App.","court_id":"lactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2008-06-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 2007-CA-1522","docket_id":64855515,"judge":"III, Landrieu, Lombard, McKay","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T16:00:09.224755Z","date_created":"2022-07-30T21:42:56.992859Z","score":{"bm25":55.87901}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7793648,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T23:42:01.472540Z","date_created":"2022-07-30T21:42:56.997156Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nEDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge.\nLin this action for the wrongful death of William J. Lyncker, Jr. (“Mr. Lyncker”), Plaintiffs/Appellants appeal the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment to Circle, Inc. (“Circle”), and dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against it with prejudice. After a de novo review of the evidence in light of the relevant law, we find that summary judgment was proper and affirm the judgment o","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7793648],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1401774/mathis-v-rkl-designbuild/","attorney":"Robert Joseph Killeen Jr., Houston, TX, for Appellant., Raymond A. Krell, Daniel L. McKay, Krell & Troigian, Feichtinger M. Bruce, and Vicki L. Pinak, Watson, Kowis & Ros-sick, Houston, TX, for Appellee.","caseName":"Mathis v. RKL Design/Build","caseNameFull":"George MATHIS Jr., Appellant, v. RKL DESIGN/BUILD, Appellee","citation":["189 S.W.3d 839","2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 424","2006 WL 133504"],"citeCount":35,"cluster_id":1401774,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp1","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2006-01-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"01-04-01318-CV","docket_id":191042,"judge":"Tim Taft","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T07:54:35.002194Z","date_created":"2015-10-16T16:08:04.222024Z","score":{"bm25":53.53882}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1495917,1512996,1623885,1625454,1687202,1725125,1750107,1751153,1758102,1774383,1775110,2003292,2331188,2452262,2454752,2459893,9643158,9660360,9662817,9671176,9682489,9772904,9775404],"download_url":null,"id":1401774,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"texas/court_opinions/documents/c0fcee5371659cc6.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T07:54:34.995835Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:58:17.919333Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ca1dccfba87a3187df284d53b1933d4968a5e8fa","snippet":"[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 841 \n OPINION\nAppellant, George Mathis Jr., appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, RKL Design/Build (\"RKL\"). We determine whether the trial court erred in its summary judgment ruling. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.\n Facts<","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[8334,8350],"panel_names":["George Hanks","Evelyn V. Keyes"],"posture":"Appeal from the 215th District Court, Harris County. Page 840","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1401774],"source":"ZLU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7121827/artisan-design-build-inc-v-bilstrom/","attorney":"John E Lynch, Jr., and Matthew J. Weiss, both of Cremer, Shaughnessy, Spina, Jansen & Siegert, LLC, of Chicago, for appellant., James F. McCluskey, James S. Harkness, and Lauryn E. Parks, all of Momkus McCluskey, LLC, of Lisle, for appellees.","caseName":"Artisan Design Build, Inc. v. Bilstrom","caseNameFull":"ARTISAN DESIGN BUILD, INC. v. DAVID BILSTROM","citation":["397 Ill. App. 3d 317"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":7121827,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-09-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 2—08—0855","docket_id":64110189,"judge":"Zenoff","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T12:43:23.356959Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T06:31:38.048514Z","score":{"bm25":53.103516}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7029158,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T10:03:56.005576Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T06:31:38.053814Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":" PRESIDING JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Artisan Design Build, Inc., appeals from an order of the circuit court of Du Page County dismissing its complaint against defendants, David and Jody Bilstrom, for failing to furnish defendants with a consumer rights brochure, in violation of the Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act (Act) (815 ILCS 513/","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7029158],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2169431/artisan-design-build-inc-v-bilstrom/","attorney":"","caseName":"Artisan Design Build, Inc. v. Bilstrom","caseNameFull":"","citation":["922 N.E.2d 361"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":2169431,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-03-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2-08-0855","docket_id":1991614,"judge":"Zenoff","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T09:28:09.472191Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T21:03:59.539629Z","score":{"bm25":51.881687}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2020027,2033659,2034638,2050737,2057869,2072762,2146409,2204230,2219859,2233283],"download_url":null,"id":2169431,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T17:53:53.976544Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:31:15.453389Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f5f5514e0582b353c37cf9854475ba0c06dc8546","snippet":"\n922 N.E.2d 361 (2009)\nARTISAN DESIGN BUILD, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,\nv.\nDavid BILSTROM and Jody Bilstrom, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 2-08-0855.\nAppellate Court of Illinois, Second District.\nSeptember 22, 2009.\nAs corrected March 4, 2010.\n*362 John P. Lynch Jr., Matthew J. Weiss, Cremer, Shaughnessy, Spina, Janse","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2169431],"source":"L","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9323741/french-v-itt-industriesharrisburg-design-center/","attorney":"Daniel I. Herman, for plaintiff., Robert Hastings, for defendant ITT Industries., Thomas King, for defendant First Energy.","caseName":"French v. ITT Industries/Harrisburg Design Center","caseNameFull":"French v. ITT Industries/Harrisburg Design Center","citation":["66 Pa. D. & C.4th 196","2004 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 256"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9323741,"court":"Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County","court_citation_string":"","court_id":"pactcompllawren","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2004-02-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"no. 10401 of 2003, C.A.","docket_id":66604089,"judge":"Motto","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T00:47:18.537737Z","date_created":"2022-12-02T17:48:35.831249Z","score":{"bm25":48.515137}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9319050,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:09:06.488656Z","date_created":"2022-12-02T17:48:35.836065Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMOTTO, J.,\nBefore the court for disposition is the motion for protective order of defendant Goulds Pumps Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ITT Industries Inc., and the plaintiff’s petition for extension of time to file complaint and to strike/overrule motion for protective order. The disposition of both motions turns on whether the court will allow plaintiff to engage in pre-complaint discovery as to defendant ITT, and ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9319050],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1623669/gomez-v-construction-design-inc/","attorney":"Douglas N. Ghertner, John M. Graham, Jr., Kansas City, for Appellant-Respondent., Candis L. Young, Kansas City, for Respondent-Appellant.","caseName":"Gomez v. Construction Design, Inc.","caseNameFull":"William GOMEZ, Respondent-Appellant, v. CONSTRUCTION DESIGN, INC., Appellant-Respondent","citation":["126 S.W.3d 366","2004 Mo. LEXIS 5","2004 WL 51781"],"citeCount":21,"cluster_id":1623669,"court":"Supreme Court of Missouri","court_citation_string":"Mo.","court_id":"mo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2004-01-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC 85115","docket_id":188859,"judge":"Price","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T05:01:09.409885Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T07:22:48.994710Z","score":{"bm25":47.869946}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":4941,"cites":[1352507,1494843,1542926,1736110,1785288,2174321,2384312,3530844],"download_url":null,"id":1623669,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T10:24:15.270901Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:57:45.663138Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4791eb6a3a005eec35bde45059ea52b7cd4dcea5","snippet":"\n126 S.W.3d 366 (2004)\nWilliam GOMEZ, Respondent-Appellant,\nv.\nCONSTRUCTION DESIGN, INC., Appellant-Respondent.\nNo. SC 85115.\nSupreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.\nJanuary 13, 2004.\nRehearing Denied February 24, 2004.\n*368 Douglas N. Ghertner, John M. Graham, Jr., Kansas City, for Appellant-Respondent.\nCandis","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1623669],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8712258/bel-canto-design-ltd-v-mss-hifi-inc/","attorney":"Benjamin J. Court, John Harper, III, Messerli & Kramer P.A., Minneapolis, MN, Edward Steven Rudofsky, Zane & Rudofsky, New York, NY, Mark A. Larsen, Larsen Christensen & Rico, PLLC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff., Sam Peter Israel, Sam P. Israel, P.C., New York, NY, Troy J. Hutchinson, Benjamin E. Gurstelle, Briggs & Morgan, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants.","caseName":"Bel Canto Design, Ltd. v. MSS HiFi, Inc.","caseNameFull":"BEL CANTO DESIGN, LTD. v. MSS HIFI, INC. and John Boey a/k/a Johnny Boey","citation":["837 F. Supp. 2d 208","2011 WL 6355215","2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146701"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":8712258,"court":"District Court, S.D. New York","court_citation_string":"S.D.N.Y.","court_id":"nysd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-12-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 11 Civ. 6353 (CM)","docket_id":65978166,"judge":"McMahon","lexisCite":"2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146701","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:05:26.030924Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T04:49:26.370485Z","score":{"bm25":46.73842}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[45,75552,100383,102092,105132,110699,145928,172018,211680,213082,223136,475428,480175,486548,597410,790926,1230533,1452070,2057170,2431787,2512634,2513679,6172728,6939368,8408823,8419918,8972018,9009904],"download_url":null,"id":8695447,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T03:53:20.659650Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T04:49:26.381224Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION\nMcMAHON, District Judge.\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nOn November 28, 2011, Plaintiff Bel Canto Design, Ltd.’s (“Bel Canto”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction came on for hearing. Based upon the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Bel Canto’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion f","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8695447],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}