District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Court Cases

Search
  1. Quarles v. Philip Morris, Incorporated (1968)

    Douglas H. Quarles, plaintiff, and Ephriam Briggs intervening plaintiff, Negro employees of Philip Morris, Inc., and members of Local 203 of the Tobacco Workers International Union, brought this action on their own behalf and on behalf of other Negroes similarly situated, against the company, the union and the president of the union, to enjoin them from violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.). Quarles sued the company; upon Briggs' intervention, the [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. 4544
  2. Landman v. Royster (1971)

    This class action by prisoners of the Virginia Penal System is brought against defendants charged with the powers and duties encompassing the maintenance and supervision of the correctional system of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The jurisdiction of the Court is acquired pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3), (4), 2201, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. 170-69-R
  3. Jetform Corp. v. Unisys Corp. (1998)

    Plaintiff JetForm Corporation ("JetForm") filed this lawsuit against Unisys Corporation ("Unisys") on February 17, 1998. According to the Complaint, JetForm is a Canadian software manufacturer which licensed certain software products to Unisys, allowing Unisys to provide those products to the United States Coast Guard in furtherance of Unisys' contract with the Coast Guard. JetForm contends that its agreement with Unisys requires Unisys to pay JetForm a royalty for each Coast Guard keyboard [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: CIV. A. 98-228-A
  4. Doe v. Commonwealth's Atty. for City of Richmond (1975)

    Virginia's statute making sodomy a crime is unconstitutional, each of the male plaintiffs aver, when it is applied to his active and regular homosexual relations with another adult male, consensually and in private.[1] They assert that local State officers threaten them with prosecution for violation of this law, that such enforcement would deny them their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' assurance of due process, the First Amendment's protection of their rights of freedom of expression, the [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. 74-0025-R
  5. In Re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation (2000)

    The central question presented in these threshold dismissal motions in this securities fraud class action is the unresolved question of the meaning to be given to the state-of-mind pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA" or the "Act"). Specifically at issue are the meaning of the PSLRA's requirement that a complaint in a securities fraud action must allege sufficient facts giving rise to a "strong inference" of scienter and whether the Consolidated [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ.A. 00-473-A
  6. Magnuson v. Peak Technical Services, Inc. (1992)

    This case presents novel questions concerning the scope of employer liability for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Plaintiff has alleged violations of Title VII and several pendent state law claims against four defendants: Volkswagen of America ("Volkswagen"), Peak Technical Services, Inc. ("Peak"), Fairfax Motor Imports d/b/a Fairfax Volkswagen ("Fairfax"), and Richard Blaylock ("Blaylock"). The amended complaint alleged five counts of [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. No. 92-885-A
  7. Erickson v. American Institute of Bio. Sciences (1989)

    This is a qui tam action.[1] It is brought by a government employee who claims to be an "independent source" of evidence proving that the defendant submitted false claims to a government agency in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (1986). Because the relator, as qui tam plaintiffs are called, is a government employee and because a preexisting qui tam suit brought by another relator (this defendant) involves, in part, the same subject matter, this action raises novel and important questions [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. 88-1022-A
  8. Safadi v. Howard (2006)

    In this mandamus action, plaintiff, Akram Safadi, seeks to compel defendant, Phyllis Howard, District Director of the Washington Field Office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), to adjudicate immediately his application to adjust to permanent resident status. Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiffs suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., or alternatively, for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: 1:06CV1055
  9. Cavallo v. Star Enterprise (1995)

    Mark C. Hayes, Law Offices of Mark C. Hayes, P.C., Alexandria, VA, Donnell R. Fullerton, Donnell R. Fullerton, P.C., Fairfax, VA, John E. Drury, Law Offices of John Drury, Washington, DC, for plaintiff.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. 94-1499-A
  10. In Re Yi (1998)

    The matter is before the Court on debtors' appeal from the bankruptcy court's order denying their motion for entry of a default judgment and dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. At issue is whether a debtor can avoid a lien on a property that is already encumbered by other, prior liens when the value of those prior liens exceeds the value of the property. In other words, the question is whether such a lien is unsecured under § 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus void under [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: 97-15011-SSM, CIV. A. No. 97-1729-A
  11. St. Paul Fire & Marine v. Advanced Interventional (1993)

    In this declaratory judgment action concerning coverage of a general liability insurance policy, the question presented is whether, under California law, patent infringement and inducement to infringe constitute "advertising injury" within the meaning of the policy. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that they do not.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. No. 92-1634-A
  12. American & For. Ins. v. Church Sch. (1986)

    Samuel W. Hixon, III, A. Peter Brodell, Williams, Mullen & Christian, Richmond, Va., Margaret L. Bacigal, for defendants Church Schools in the Diocese of Virginia, Allen W. Becker, Peggy Ross, Susan E. Goff and Amy Archinal.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. 86-0297-R
  13. Stevens v. Abbott, Proctor & Paine (1968)

    The plaintiff herein, a housewife with no business training, married to a portrait artist, is a high school graduate and attended a girls' finishing school. Her husband has a limited education and the record is devoid of any particular business acumen on his part. The plaintiff has never been gainfully employed and the Court finds that she is utterly naive and unsophisticated in reference to financial transactions. To adequately describe plaintiff's lack of sophistication in financial matters [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. 5346
  14. James v. Almond (1959)

    A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen., Walter E. Rogers, Richmond, Va., Leonard H. Davis, City Atty., Norfolk, Va., for the City of Norfolk, Va., Leigh D. Williams, and W. R. C. Cocke, Norfolk, Va., for defendants.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. 2843
  15. Saunders v. General Services Corp. (1987)

    Timothy M. Kaine, Little, Parsley & Cluverius, P.C., Richmond, Va., William H. Jeffress, Jr., Rory K. Little, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Washington, D.C., Kerry A. Scanlon, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. 86-0229-R
  16. Addison v. Reavis (1993)

    In one appeal, Ainslie v. Grablowsky, debtor Bernie J. Grablowsky challenges the ruling of the bankruptcy court on the motion for relief from stay filed by John W. Ainslie and John W. Ainslie, Sr. The Ainslies sought relief from stay in order to purchase from the trustee any non-exempt interest of the debtor in two limited partnerships: Piper Apartments Associates, L.P. (the "Piper partnership"), and Lisa Square Associates, L.P. (the "Lisa Square partnership"). By order of January 6, 1993, the [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. Nos. 2:93cv166, 2:93cv125
  17. Moseke v. Miller and Smith, Inc. (2002)

    John M. Bredehoft, Venable, Baeter and Howard, Vienna, Virginia, Mark Patrick Graham, Rees Broome & Diaz, Vienna, VA, Wilbert Washington, II, Chadwick, Washington, Olters, Moriarty & Lynn, Fairfax, VA, Michael L. O'Reilly, Rees Broome & Diaz, Vienna, Virginia, VA, for defendants.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ.A. 01-1771-A
  18. Solers, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. (2001)

    THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. This case involves a dispute about an insurance company's duty to defend an insured in an action involving the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and customer lists, and the exploitation of a commercial opportunity. The question presented is whether the subject matter of the misappropriation dispute arguably falls within the [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civil Action No. 00-1947-A
  19. Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, Va. (1993)

    This action arises as a consequence of plaintiffs' efforts to maintain group housing for recovering alcohol and drug abusers in areas zoned for "single family" dwellings in Virginia Beach, Virginia (the "City"). The City's zoning ordinance defines a "family" to include groups of no more than four people unrelated by blood or marriage, see Va. Beach Code Zoning Ordinance § 111, but provides that group homes of more than four unrelated persons are permitted uses in each of the City's ten [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. 2:92CV980
  20. Tyler v. Weinberger (1976)

    This matter is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff, Philip E. Tyler, and defendant, Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. Plaintiff filed an application with the Social Security Administration for entitlement to disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405 et seq. The request was denied, whereupon plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration which was also denied. Thereafter a hearing [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Docket: Civ. A. No. CA 75-0242-R

1 of 227 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5