The case involved a dispute over enforcement of a 1973 General Indemnity Agreement (GIA) that Windowmaster Corporation and the Walbergs signed as indemnitors in exchange for Safeco issuing construction performance bonds on a subcontract with Morse/Diesel. After Morse/Diesel declared Windowmaster in default on the Rush Presbyterian project, Safeco arranged via letter agreement for the work to continue with Windowmaster's involvement and later sought to recover its expenses from the indemnitors under the GIA. The Walbergs moved for summary judgment, arguing Safeco had violated the GIA by using a remedy outside the three options expressly listed, while Safeco moved for summary judgment on liability, contending the remedies were not exclusive. The court denied the Walbergs' motion and granted Safeco's, holding that the GIA contained no exclusivity clause, the letter agreement was a permissible additional remedy, and no genuine issues of fact existed as to the contract's existence or Safeco's incurrence of expenses.
This case involves the Chicago Pacific Corporation (CPC), successor to the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, petitioning for an injunction to stop George and Delores Furry from prosecuting their personal injury lawsuit in Nebraska federal court alleging asbestos exposure during George Furry's employment with the railroad from 1957 to 1979. The court granted the injunction, barring the Furrys from pursuing their claim. The core reasoning was that the railroad's Section 77 reorganization under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 amounted to a liquidation, as the company ceased operations, discharging all claims not timely filed by the April 12, 1984 bar date established in the consummation order. The court followed precedent from In re Erie Lackawanna Railway Company, noting that no debtor entity remained against which to proceed, and rejected the due process argument because the plaintiffs were not known creditors entitled to personal notice beyond publication.
This case involves Soft Sheen Products, Inc. suing Revlon, Inc. and its subsidiary for trademark and trade dress infringement regarding hair care products targeted at the black community, specifically the "Care Free Curl" line with its distinctive bright yellow and red packaging. The court found a likelihood of confusion with Revlon's "Creme of Nature" shampoo and instant moisturizer, which adopted similar packaging in 1984-1985, while Soft Sheen had established secondary meaning through extensive sales and promotion. Based on these findings, the court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Revlon from using the infringing trade dress, concluding that the balance of harms and public interest favored protection of Soft Sheen's rights.
The case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to compel the trustee of a defunct non-profit community action agency to abandon grant funds and property provided by state and federal agencies. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order, holding that the assets were property of the bankruptcy estate under section 541 and that the trustee could sell the property and use the proceeds to pay pre-petition creditors and administrative expenses. The court reasoned that the debtor held legal and equitable interests in the funds with no trust relationship excluding them from the estate, and that payments to creditors for goods and services were consistent with the grant purposes, so no equitable liens in favor of the grantors applied. It further concluded that the trustee's fees were intertwined with fulfilling those purposes and could be paid from the funds.
This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which plaintiffs Water Technologies Corporation and others sued defendants Calco, Ltd., William J. Gartner, and Robert Kalnitz over the validity and infringement of several patents related to water treatment technology. Following an earlier ruling that the patents were valid and infringed, with an award of $1.04 million in damages plus attorneys' fees and interest, the court addressed post-trial motions including defendants' requests to substitute a reasonable royalty for lost profits damages and to limit Gartner's personal liability, plaintiffs' petitions for costs, fees, and prejudgment interest, and Kalnitz's motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The court denied the motions to alter the judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the lost profits measure and Gartner's significant role in the infringement, granted plaintiffs $5,055.16 in costs, $150,000 in attorneys' fees, and $221,102 in prejudgment interest, and denied sanctions against Kalnitz, concluding the claims were reasonably based under the applicable rules.
This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Water Technologies Corp., its subsidiary, and Kansas State University Research Foundation against Calco, Ltd. and William J. Gartner over four patents for demand bactericide resins used to disinfect water. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' Pocket Purifier straws infringed the patents through manufacture, use, and sale. The court found the patents valid and willfully infringed, based on evidence that the defendants examined the patented resins and patents before producing and selling their competing products. The court awarded $1,040,000 in damages (including doubling for willfulness), prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction against further infringement by the defendants.