<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<court-cases type="array">
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-cv-4612</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Almost three years after settling fraud charges with media giant Time Warner Inc., regulators have charged a group of former executives in connection with the same billion-dollar scam</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">1</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Securities and Exchange Commission v. John Michael Kelly et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>securities-and-exchange-commission-v-john-michael-kelly-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">701</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Securities and Exchange Commission v. John Michael Kelly et al</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>SEC Charges Time Warner Execs Over $1B Scam</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>04-cv-08141</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">2</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IN RE American International Group, Inc Securities Litigation  </official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-american-international-group-inc-securities-litigation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">237</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IN RE American International Group, Inc Securities Litigation  </short-case-name>
    <source>Hedge Fund</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>CP07P0055</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>Court Services</department>
    <description>Videoconference between Juvenile corrections and juvenile court for appearance of the accused.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">3</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Videoconference between Maine Correctional Center and Berkshire</official-case-name>
    <permalink>maine-juvenile-court-vc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">995</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Maine Juvenile Court VC</short-case-name>
    <source>Party/Firm Involved in Case</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>D0182-877</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Esco Insurance Agency LLC ET AL</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Beaumont woman has filed suit against two insurance companies and a mortgage company, alleging the insurance companies wrongly refused to pay for wind damage to her house caused by Hurricane Ike.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">4</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Rachel Gray </official-case-name>
    <permalink>rachel-gray-vs-esco-insurance</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Rachel Gray </plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Insurance Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1052</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Rachel Gray vs Esco Insurance </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>05771 LACL089634</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN/ALM</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">5</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>DENNIS L CAWTHORN VS DANIEL E MIULLI,D O ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>cawthorn-v-catholic-health-initiatives</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Medical Malpractice</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">485</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Cawthorn v. Catholic Health Initiatives</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC371958</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>eHarmony </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Ms. Linda Carlson (real name of Plaintiff) filed a complaint when she was denied access to the popular dating website because it does not allow &quot;matches&quot; for non heterosexual individuals. After writing a complaint to the site, the woman was not accommodated. The suit names the founder and his wife, who are linked to a conservative Christian company, as defendants.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">6</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Nate Cardin et al v. eHarmony</official-case-name>
    <permalink>cardin-v-eharmony</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Nate Cardin</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1222</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Cardin v. eHarmony</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Lack of same sex opportunities on site, constituting discrimination.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-A-558164-C </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Endoscopy Center Of Southern Nevada LLC </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">7</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Michael Washington v. Endoscopy Center Of Southern Nevada LLC </official-case-name>
    <permalink>washington-v-ecsn</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Medical Malpractice</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">822</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Washington v. ECSN</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC173487</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">8</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS JAMES JONES COMPANY ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>state-of-california-vs-james-jones-compa</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">886</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS JAMES JONES COMPA</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-cv-00235</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">9</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Winnett et al v. Caterpillar,  Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>winnett-et-al-v-caterpillar</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">181</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Winnett et al v. Caterpillar</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC340049</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>6-17 contempt hearing.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;From &quot;The American Lawyer&quot; - &quot;At the hearing Thursday, Chaney dismissed from the bench two tort cases against Dole and Dow Chemical, ruling that Los Angeles plaintiffs lawyer Juan Dominguez and co-counsel in Nicaragua committed a &quot;fraud on the court&quot; and a &quot;blatant extortion&quot; of the defendants. In the hottest water is Dominguez, counsel to thousands of Nicaraguan men who won judgments against Dole Foods in Nicaraguan courts after claiming they were made sterile by the chemical DBCP, which is used on banana plantations.&quot;</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">10</id>
    <industry>Agriculture</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Mejia et al v Dole Food et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>mejia-et-al-v-dole-food-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Professional Responsibility</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">179</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Mejia et al v Dole Food et al </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Hearing date set</status>
    <summary>contempt hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-06T20:03:43-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>401720/2005</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN/ALM</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">11</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>SPITZER, ELIOT vs. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP </official-case-name>
    <permalink>cuomo-vs-greenberg</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Fraud</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">199</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>CUOMO vs. GREENBERG</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC295835</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">12</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>RNR OILS, INC., VS. BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC, ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>rnr-oils-inc-vs-bp-west-coast-products-llc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">431</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:51-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC367743</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">13</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS INC VS NEWS AMERICA INCORPORATED ET </official-case-name>
    <permalink>valassisis-vs-news-america</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">191</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Valassisis vs. News America</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2:07-cv-01292</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">14</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Doe v. Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association, et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>doe-v-arizona-hospital-and-healthcare-association-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">284</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC172546</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>15-day jury trial to determine damages related to breach of oil and gas lease.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/214083-calif.-court-clears-way-for-500-million-award-for-macpherson-oil&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">15</id>
    <industry>Energy</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Hermosa Bch Stop Oil Coalition Et Al v. City Of Hermosa Bch</official-case-name>
    <permalink>hermosa-bch-stop-oil-coalition-et-al-v-city-of-hermosa-bch</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">779</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Hermosa Bch Stop Oil Coalition Et Al v. City Of Hermosa Bch</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-08-21T12:03:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CGC-03-417580 </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">16</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Larry Bowoto v. ChevronTexaco Corporation </official-case-name>
    <permalink>larry-bowoto-vs-chevrontexaco-corporation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">614</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>LARRY BOWOTO VS. CHEVRONTEXACO CORPORATION </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>BC296533</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">17</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name> FOUNTAIN SHELL INC ET AL VS EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>fountain-shell-inc-et-al-vs-equilon-enterprises-llc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">137</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC338906</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">18</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>KENNETH M. HOOVER JR VS DOES 1 THROUGH 300</official-case-name>
    <permalink>kenneth-m-hoover-jr-vs-does-1-through-300</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Toxic Tort</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">830</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>KENNETH M. HOOVER JR VS DOES 1 THROUGH 300</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC324558</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">19</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IN RE REGATTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CASE</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-regatta-homeowners-association-case</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1010</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IN RE REGATTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CASE</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3:08-cv-01551</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">20</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ham et al v. The Continental Insurance Company</official-case-name>
    <permalink>ham-et-al-v-the-continental-insurance-company</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1018</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Ham et al v. The Continental Insurance Company</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:07-cv-08538</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">21</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>freudenberg-v-etrade-financial-corporation-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">547</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-8383</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Bloomberg LP</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has identified 40 more plaintiffs to join its pregnancy discrimination case against Bloomberg LP, the media and financial titan founded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;On Thursday, lawyers for both the EEOC and Bloomberg convened for a status conference at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. EEOC attorney Raechel Adams revealed there that the number of plaintiffs in the case has grown to 58, a marked change from the previous 19.</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">22</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>EEOC v. Bloomberg LP</official-case-name>
    <permalink>eeoc-v-bloomberg-lp</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Equal Employemnt Opportunity Commission</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">658</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>EEOC v. Bloomberg LP</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>EEOC lawsuit against Bloomberg for pregnancy discrimination.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC364555</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">23</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name> ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOUNDATION VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO</official-case-name>
    <permalink>environmental-law-foundation-vs-southern-california-gas-co</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Toxic Tort</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">157</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOUNDATION VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>SC093400</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Better Business Bureau of Southland </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>From Reuters: Entertainment Career Connection, a 24-year-old Los Angeles-based business offers certificate programs in all aspects of filmmaking, radio broadcasting and audio engineering. More than 6,000 students have graduated from Entertainment Career Connection programs, creating a vast alumni network worldwide. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The BBB gave Entertainment Career Connection its worst possible rating -- an &quot;F&quot; out of a scale from &quot;AAA&quot; to &quot;F.&quot; The lawsuit alleges that the rating is unfair and is the product of unfair practices employed by the BBB, including using a separate but undisclosed more favorable rating system for businesses that pay for costly BBB memberships. &lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">24</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Entertainment Career Connection Inc. V. Better Business Bur</official-case-name>
    <permalink>entertainment-career-v-bbb</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Entertainment Connection</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1068</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Entertainment Career V. BBB</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Entertainment bus. alleges BBB is engaged in illegal practices.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC323630</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">25</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>BOUQUET VS THE THOMSON CORPORATION ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>bouquet-vs-the-thomson-corporation-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">887</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>BOUQUET VS THE THOMSON CORPORATION ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">26</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: War Memorial Hospital Pension Fund</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-war-memorial-hospital</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1145</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: War Memorial Hospital</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>05-cv-04182</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">27</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation </official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-katrina-canal-breaches-litigation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Accident Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">106</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">28</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>USA ex rel. Mary Hendow and Julie Albertson v University of Phoenix 03-cv-00457</official-case-name>
    <permalink>usa-ex-rel-mary-hendow-and-julie-albertson-v-university-of-phoenix-03-cv-00457</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">221</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CV-2008-1029</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Greg and Kathleen Phipps, owners of WOHL, filed a lawsuit against WLIO's parent company, Block Communications. Block is trying to take over the local FOX affiliate and gain a stranglehold on local television options.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;http://unified-communications.tmcnet.com/news/2008/08/02/3581229.htm</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">29</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>TV-67, Inc. vs. Block Communications, Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>tv-67-inc-vs-block-communications-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1000</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>TV-67, Inc. vs. Block Communications, Inc. </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC332426</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Consolidated jury trial determining liability for a 2008 derailment on LA's Metrolink public transit system that resulted in multiple injuries. </description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">30</id>
    <industry>Transportation</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Glendale Metrolink Derailment Cases</official-case-name>
    <permalink>glendale-metrolink-derailment-cases</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Accident Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">147</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Glendale Metrolink Derailment Cases</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-07-21T12:02:42-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-6848</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:29-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">31</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Allen vs. RJ Reynolds, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>allen-vs-rj-reynolds</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1126</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Allen vs. RJ Reynolds</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>017-222746-07</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">32</id>
    <industry>Automotive</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Gloria Clark vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>gloria-clark-vs-wal-mart-stores-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Personal injury</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1170</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Gloria Clark vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-706645-CZ</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Trial over 1.5 billion merger. Valassis originally filed the action in the State of Michigan Wayne County Circuit Court on March 9, 2007 raising common law and statutory causes of action.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;In addition to the Michigan state law claims, Valassis has lawsuits pending against News America in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, and in the Supreme Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles raising claims under California's Cartwright, Unfair Competition and Unfair Practices Acts.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">33</id>
    <industry>Media</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Valassis vs. News America</official-case-name>
    <permalink>valassis-vs-news-america</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Mergers &amp; Acquisitions</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1150</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Valassis vs. News America</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>JCCP4504</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN/ALM</department>
    <description>Fraud</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">34</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>ALLEGED PONZI SCHEME CASES</official-case-name>
    <permalink>alleged-ponzi-scheme-cases</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Fraud</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">764</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>ALLEGED PONZI SCHEME CASES</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>JCCP4472</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">35</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX CASES VS HOTELS.COM,L.P., ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>transient-occupancy-tax-cases-vs-hotelscomlp-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Fraud</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">835</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>&quot;TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX CASES&quot; VS HOTELS.COM,L.P., ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-A-516404-C</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiffs, Clive Bassett Jones, Dax Turok and Cliff Cheong, bring this suit against Las Vegas Sands for breach of contract. They assert they helped the casino win the right to build in Macau by introducing the casino operator to the Hong Kong company that helped keep Las Vegas Sands' seemingly failed bid afloat.  Jury selection is Monday June 1.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">36</id>
    <industry>Hospitality</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Jones v. Las Vegas Sands Corp</official-case-name>
    <permalink>jones-v-las-vegas-sands-corp</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1002</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Jones v. Las Vegas Sands Corp</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>Jury trial for breach of contract claim</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-06-01T17:02:40-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>42-2000-CF-003762-AXXX-XX </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Second capital murder trial after the Florida Supreme Court made the the rare decision to overturn a standing death penalty conviction and order a new trial. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Kopsho was convicted of shooting his wife, but a technicality in jury selection caused that verdict to be overturned. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">37</id>
    <industry>Legal</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State of Florida vs. Kopsho</official-case-name>
    <permalink>state-of-florida-vs-kopsho</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Criminal</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1049</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>State of Florida vs. Kopsho</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>capital murder jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CACE03009934</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">38</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Papondoples vs. Ford Motor Co. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>papondoples-vs-ford</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1127</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Papondoples vs. Ford</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC355720 </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>status conference 6/24</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">39</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>RONNIE CINQUEGRANI VS DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE STATE O</official-case-name>
    <permalink>ronnie-cinquegrani-vs-dept-of-motor-vehicles-for-the-state-o</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">303</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>RONNIE CINQUEGRANI VS DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE STATE O</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>05CC09722</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">40</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA VS BAYPORT IMPERIAL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>people-of-the-state-of-ca-vs-bayport-imperial</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">297</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA VS BAYPORT IMPERIAL</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>BC303692</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">41</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Adrian Herling Wowonrutu v. Lee Durst, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>herling-wowonrutu-v-durst-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Real estate</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1191</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Herling Wowonrutu v. Durst, et al.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC332075</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>status conf 7/21</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">42</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>MARLENE OBERFOELL ET AL VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>marlene-oberfoell-et-al-vs-cedars-sinai-medical-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">428</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>MARLENE OBERFOELL ET AL VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>2008 CA 008108 SC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Suit in Venice, Florida alleging that 9 current and former city officials violated state open-meetings laws by conducting official business on personal E-mail accounts.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The plaintiff, activist Anthony Lorenzo, wants any city action undertaken as a result of these allegedly improperly conducted communications invalidated. Estimates are that that legal bills for the city could top 1 million dollars and could potentially be paid by Venice taxpayers. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">43</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Anthony Lorenzo v. City of Venice, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>lorenzo-v-city-of-venice</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Gov't</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1143</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Lorenzo v. City of Venice</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary>Suit alleging violation of Florida's open-meetings laws by City of Venice officials. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">44</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al v. Intel Corporation et al              1:05-cv-00441-JJF</official-case-name>
    <permalink>advanced-micro-devices-inc-et-al-v-intel-corporation-et-al-105-cv-00441-jjf</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">158</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CIV053693</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080213/overstockcom_court_ruling.html?.v=1</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">45</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., ET. AL. VS. GRADIENT ANALYTICS, INC., ET. AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>overstockcom-inc-et-al-vs-gradient-analytics-inc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">645</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>In Marin Co. Superior Court (CA)</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3705-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Ebay</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>eBay alleged that Craiglist's directors unfairly diluted eBay's 28.4 percent minority shareholder stake in Craigslist and eliminated eBay's right to appoint a director.  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;See &lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://info.courtroomview.com/Blog/&quot;&gt;CVN's Blog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt; for all the details, and see CVN's &lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://info.courtroomview.com/ebay-vs-craigslist/&quot;&gt;Daily Video Clips Special Offer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Craigslist impaired eBay's stake and implemented a poison pill after eBay launched in the US a competing online classified website, kijiji.com.  In a separate lawsuit filed in San Francisco, Craigslist accused eBay of using its shareholder position, which allowed eBay to appoint a director, to obtain confidential competitive information to gain an unfair commercial advantage in developing eBay's own competing online classified ad business.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, and Jim Buckmaster, Craigslist's President and CEO, were the only two members of Craigslist's board of directors, and the only shareholders (other than eBay).  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;On August 9, 2004, eBay became a shareholder and obtained first refusal rights and the right to appoint a director.  eBay's rights were contingent upon its refraining from engaging in competitive activity.  On June 29, 2007, eBay launched in the United States its own online classified advertising website, kijiji.com, and Craigslist sent a notice of Competitive Activity.  eBay refused Craigslist's subseqent request to divest its shares.  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Craigslist then diluted eBay's shares, which eliminated eBay's right to appoint a director, and implemented a poison pill that would prevent eBay from selling its shares to anyone other than to Craigslist.  eBay commenced this lawsuit hoping to restore its position and to void the poison pill.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://content.courtroomview.com/images/cvn/eBay-Trial-Testimony-From-Whitman-Omidyar-Silverman-Newmark.png&quot; alt=&quot;Executives Testify in eBay-Craigslist Trial: Meg Whitman, Pierre Omidyar, Josh Silverman, and Craig Newmark&quot; /&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The eBay-Craigslist trial has testimony from Meg Whitman (eBay CEO), Pierre Omidyar (eBay Founder), Josh Silverman (Skype CEO), Craig Newmark (Craigslist Founder), Jim Buckmaster (Craigslist CEO), Garrett Price (eBay Business Development Lead), Brian Levey (eBay Counsel), and Ed Wes (Craigslist Counsel).&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;View a free video clip from the case:&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=c16c26a1d69d4549af35f98a8685e50a&quot;&gt;Former eBay CEO, Meg Whitman, is cross-examined by attorney Catherine Dearlove -- Clip 1&lt;/a&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">46</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>eBay Domestic Holdings Inc., v. Craig Newmark</official-case-name>
    <permalink>craigslist-v-ebay</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Craigslist</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">653</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>eBay v. Craigslist</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>eBay alleged that Craiglist's directors unfairly diluted eBay's 28.4 percent minority shareholder stake in Craigslist and eliminated eBay's right to appoint a director.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-12-16T12:02:42-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>S1500 CV 245287 mgb</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Bakersfield farmer Fred Starrh sued Aera Energy, a joint venture of Exxon Mobil and Shell, in 2001 for trespass, alleging the oil company knowingly contaminated his farm's groundwater supply by pouring billions of barrels of waste water  extracted from the nearby Belridge Fields oil production site into unlined percolation pits.  Starrh proposed a plan to restore the aquifer to its original condition, which would have cost over $2 billion, but a jury in Kern County Superior Court awarded only $7 million in damages. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;On appeal, Starrh's lawyers argued that the damages should potentially include money saved by Aera by not  properly disposing the waste water.  The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno ordered a new trial on damages, noting that even if Aera had been forced to pay $1 per barrel instead of 1.5 cents per barrel  to dispose of the waste water, Aera would still have had over $1 billion in profits.  Aera and several industry associations unsuccessfully petitioned the California Supreme Court to allow the original $7 million award to stand.  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;After retrial, the jury found that 96,096,512 barrels of water had crossed from Aera ponds onto the plaintiff's property, and that Aera obtained a benefit from this method of waste water disposal worth $8,559,622.&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">47</id>
    <industry>Environmental</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Starrh and Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy LLC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>starrh-v-aera</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Environmental Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">978</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Starrh v. Aera</short-case-name>
    <source>Party/Firm Involved in Case</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary>Case involves water disposal contamination liability. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-11-06T16:02:04-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1-04-CV-019992</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">48</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Silvaco Data Systems Vs Cypress Semiconductor Corporation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>silvaco-data-systems-vs-cypress-semiconductor-corporation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">170</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Silvaco Data Systems Vs Cypress Semiconductor Corporation</short-case-name>
    <source>ALM</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>San Mateo Superior Court&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&quot;Hageseth, of Colorado, is scheduled for jury trial on a single felony charge of practicing medicine without a license in the state of California. His defense team has consistently argued he cannot be prosecuted because he never physically set foot in the state when he prescribed fluoxetine for John McKay more than four years ago.&quot;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">49</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State of California vs. Hageseth</official-case-name>
    <permalink>state-of-california-vs-hageseth</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Criminal</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1050</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>State of California vs. Hageseth</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2004-14009-CA-01</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>This trial will determine whether BDO Seidman was an agent of BDO International, thus making the international accounting network potentially liable for a $500M+ judgment against US network member BDO Seidman.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The trial court ruled that the Banco Espirito's evidence could not have established agency, but the Florida Court of Appeal ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a trial on whether BDO Seidman had acted as the international accounting network's agent, and thus the international accountancy network might be vicariously liable for the judgment against its network member BDO Seidman.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;In the underlying case, Banco Espirito Santo's professional malpractice claim against accounting firm BDO Seidman resulted in a jury award of $170M in compensatory damages and $352 in punitive damages.  Portugal's third largest bank alleged that BDO had conducted negligent audits for one of BDO's clients, failing to discover a $220M fraud that cost Banco Espirito $170M.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;View free video clips from the case:&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=225eebee55aa4dfbbf0c527cd85db43c&quot;&gt;Plaintiff's opening statement -- Clip 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=6899fa5b9e07440a827720ed806bea03&quot;&gt;Plaintiff's opening statement -- Clip 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=2525bd77316f422a82810780161ed7d9&quot;&gt;Defense's opening statement -- Clip 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=46a511fcb94048eeb2d4ecf26641647f&quot;&gt;Defense's opening statement -- Clip 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=de77f9cd33e6435d8aceb69ec9c44db0&quot;&gt;Testimony of Paul van Elten, BDO International Secretary -- Clip 1&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=08957d4165cb49b3adcedd622afa6c97&quot;&gt;Paul van Elten -- Clip 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=91279169b0bf4890a94169e0bc827b2f&quot;&gt;Paul van Elten' -- Clip 3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">50</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Banco Espirito Santo v. BDO International</official-case-name>
    <permalink>banco-espirito-santo-v-bdo</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">565</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Banco Espirito v. BDO Internat'l</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Whether international accounting network BDO International was responsible under agency theory for a judgment against network member BDO Seidman. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-06-14T10:02:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>CGC-05-444221</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">true</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>In San Fran Superior Court: &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Joseph Lujan was exposed to asbestos while in the US Navy and while serving as a welder at various sites from friction parts.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Jusge Robertson II presiding.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">51</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Joseph Lujan et al v. Asbestos Defendants</official-case-name>
    <permalink>lujan</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Joseph Lujan</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Toxic Tort</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1028</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Lujan </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC259794</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Mark Moscowitz</defendant>
    <department>CVN/ALM</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">52</id>
    <industry>Legal</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>USA Talks, Inc. v. Mark Moscowitz</official-case-name>
    <permalink>usa-v-moscowitz</permalink>
    <plaintiff>USA Talks, Inc.</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">160</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>USA v. Moscowitz</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>Legal Malpractice Suit</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>07-md-01845</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">53</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IN RE: ConAgra Peanut Butter Products Liability Litigation </official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-conagra-peanut-butter-products-liability-litigation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">290</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2:07-cv-00475</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">54</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Kelley v. Microsoft Corporation </official-case-name>
    <permalink>kelley-v-microsoft-corporation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Fraud</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">150</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Kelley v. Microsoft Corporation </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">55</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Microsoft Corporation et al., v. Commonwealth Scientific &amp; Industrial Research Organisation Case No. 6:06cv551</official-case-name>
    <permalink>microsoft-corporation-et-al-v-commonwealth-scientific-industrial-research-organisation-case-no-606cv551</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">152</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">56</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Intel Corporation; Dell, Inc. v. Commonwealth Scientific &amp; Industrial Research Organisation&lt;BR/&gt;6:06cv549</official-case-name>
    <permalink>intel-corporation-dell-inc-v-commonwealth-scientific-industrial-research-organisationbr606cv549</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">153</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>BC324461</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">57</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>SWARNAPALI TIMMANN VS. JOHN F. NAPOLI ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>timmann-vs-john-f-napoli</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">154</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>TIMMANN VS. JOHN F. NAPOLI</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>LC076941</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">58</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Aboudihaj Ahmed; et al. v. Brandy Norwood; Et Al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>aboudihaj-ahmed-et-al-v-brandy-norwood-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Accident Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">410</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Aboudihaj Ahmed; et al. v. Brandy Norwood; Et Al.</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2006CV124372</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Minority challenge to freeze-out merger transaction with MBC/Black Family Channel.&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">59</id>
    <industry>Entertainment</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>James and Jackson LLC v. Holyfield, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>james-and-jackson-v-holyfield</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Art, Entertainment and Sports Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1085</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>James and Jackson v. Holyfield</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary>Minority challenge to freeze-out merger transaction with MBC/Black Family Channel.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-11T15:02:47-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC333740</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">60</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>DEBBIE JO WALES VS SHELL OIL COMPANY ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>debbie-jo-wales-vs-shell-oil-company-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">831</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>DEBBIE JO WALES VS SHELL OIL COMPANY ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">61</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In re: 3m litigation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-3m-litigation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Toxic Tort</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1029</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In re: 3m litigation</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-cv-02214</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">62</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Securities And Exchange Commission v. Heinen et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>securities-and-exchange-commission-v-heinen-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">447</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>BC322171</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:30-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">63</id>
    <industry>Construction</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Swinerton Builders v. SL West Hollywood LLC Et Al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>swinerton-builders-vs-sl-west-hollywood-llc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1061</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>SWINERTON BUILDERS VS. SL WEST HOLLYWOOD LLC ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>E159-183-Q</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>DuPont</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiffs claim that Whisnant, who worked at DuPont in 66' contracted mesothelioma from asbestos at work site.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">64</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Willis Whisnant Jr. et al vs. DuPont </official-case-name>
    <permalink>whisnant-vs-dupont</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Willis Whisnant Jr. et al. </plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1189</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Whisnant vs. DuPont </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Deceased DuPont contractor may have contracted mesothelioma, asbestos exposure</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-mdl-1738</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">65</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-vitamin-c-antitrust-litigation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">983</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-A-574136-B </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">66</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Deja Vu Showgirls Of Las Vegas LLC v. Sky Top Vending Inc </official-case-name>
    <permalink>deja-vu-v-sky-top</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1208</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Deja Vu v. Sky Top</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC307240 </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN/ALM</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">67</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State of California, et al v. Caremark RX, Inc, etc et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>california-v-caremark-rx</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">300</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>California v. Caremark RX</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">68</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Town &amp; Country Hospital v. Memorial Hermann</official-case-name>
    <permalink>hospital-v-hermann</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1201</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>hospital v. hermann</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">69</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State of Mass. v. Gerhartsreiter</official-case-name>
    <permalink>state-of-mass-v-gerhartsreiter</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Criminal</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1204</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>State of Mass. v. Gerhartsreiter</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:53-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>2006-79945</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Harris County 61st District Court - Trial&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Anti-trust suit brought by investors of a defunct hospital claiming that they were intentionally forced out of business by Memorial Hermann, which operated a hospital nearby. A similar anti-trust suit brought by the Texas attorney general recently settled. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090209/MODERNPHYSICIAN/302019957&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">70</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Miguel Franco M.D. et al. v. Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>franco-v-memorial-hermann-healthcare</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Antitrust</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1205</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Franco v. Memorial Hermann Healthcare</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-08-04T13:19:15-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CIV478796  </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Hearing on motion for preliminary injunction in class action suit in San Mateo Superior court's complex litigation division. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/details/2168/Page%20Mill%20Properties%20target%20of%20lawsuit/&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&quot;Residents, Eric Oberle, Shery Scott, Matthew Fremont and Nathan Ben Yonatan, all received rent increases of between 14 and 38 percent from Page Mill and have filed a class action suit against the landlord, alleging that Page Mill's rent hikes are illegal, meant to cause harm and an unfair business practice.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The complaint, filed on July 15, also alleges that Page Mill is using a &quot;sham&quot; ownership scheme to subvert East Palo Alto's rent control law, which exempts buildings with four or less units. Page Mill has transferred all such units into 17 limited liability companies in order to dodge the ordinance, the complaint alleges.&quot;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">71</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Eric Oberle, et al v. Page Mill Properties, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>oberle-v-page-mill-properties</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1211</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Oberle v. Page Mill Properties</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>injuction hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-07-15T10:02:23-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2004CA005791NC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The plaintiff's sciatic nerve was permanently injured during hip replacement surgery, resulting in chronic pain.  The plaintiff sought over $1M in damages.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The defendant orthopedic surgeon had undergone eye surgery for a detached retina 20 days before the defendant performed the hip replacement surgery on the plaintiff.  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The plaintiff allegedly did not know that the defendant would be performing surgery with impaired vision.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The defendant asserted that his vision was only impaired in his left eye, due to an incident that occurred when the defendant was 20 years old, and the defendant had been right-eyed for his entire career.  The defendant allegedly had previously performed 2,500 hip replacement surgeries without complication.  Therefore, the defendant's overall rate of complications was not below the standard of care.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The jury found in favor of the defendant.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">72</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Belaski v. Doctors Hospital Physical Organization, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>belaski-v-doctors-hospital-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Malpractice</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1214</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Belaski v. Doctors Hospital</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Orthopedic medical malpractice trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-06T15:01:10-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-CV-088551</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Luna Innovations Incorporated</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">73</id>
    <industry>Robotics</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Hansen Medical, Inc. v. Luna Innovations Incorporated</official-case-name>
    <permalink>hansen-medical-v-luna-innovations</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Hansen Medical, Inc.</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1221</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Hansen Medical v. Luna Innovations</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">74</id>
    <industry>Automotive</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Nichols v. W.W. Webber Construction LLC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>nichols-v-ww-webber</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1224</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Nichols v. W.W. Webber</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>07-2-32215-9</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Jury trial - From the Seattle Times: &quot;The parents of a man killed by a tower crane that collapsed into his Bellevue apartment nearly a year ago filed a lawsuit Thursday against a contractor and an engineering firm.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Matthew Ammon, 31, died when the crane collapsed Nov. 16 along 108th Avenue Northeast in downtown Bellevue. He was a Microsoft attorney who had moved to Bellevue in June 2006.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Ammon was at home in his apartment on the top floor of a building across 108th Avenue Northeast when the tower crane fell, with part of the crane collapsing onto the apartment.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The lawsuit was brought against Lease Crutcher Lewis, general contractor on the building site, known as Tower 333, and Magnusson Klemencic Associates, an engineering firm that provided design services for the building.&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">75</id>
    <industry>Construction</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In re: Tower Crane Collapse</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-tower-crane-collapse</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Accident Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1227</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In re: Tower Crane Collapse</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-27T17:05:11-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2009 - 194 </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Appeal of Judge Lowe's injunction ruling keeping &quot;Project Runway&quot; off the air after the Weinstein company handed off the show to Lifetime TV.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;From the NY Times: &quot;Almost six months ago a New York state judge issued an injunction that prevented Lifetime from promoting or broadcasting &#8220;Runway&#8221; for the time being; Lifetime will appeal that decision in court on March 19.&quot;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;PLAINTIFF:&lt;BR/&gt;GIBSON DUNN &amp; CRUTCHER&lt;BR/&gt;Orin Snyder, Esq.&lt;BR/&gt;Cynthia Arato, Esq.&lt;BR/&gt;200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor &lt;BR/&gt;New York, New York 10166-0193 &lt;BR/&gt;Telephone: (212) 351-4000 &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;DEFENSE:&lt;BR/&gt;CRAVATH SWAINE &amp; MOORE&lt;BR/&gt;Evan Chesler, Esq.&lt;BR/&gt;Stuart Gold, Esq.&lt;BR/&gt;825 Eighth Avenue&lt;BR/&gt;212-474-1000&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">76</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>NBC Universal v. Weinstein Company LLC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>nbc-universal-v-weinstein-company-llc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1229</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>NBC Universal v. Weinstein Company LLC</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>06-ALJ-07-0713-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>3-4 week bench trial - South Carolina Administrative Law Court&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;From the Fort Mill Times: &quot;Attorneys for the three companies still competing to build a hospital in Fort Mill are preparing their cases before the S.C. Administrative Law Court as the March 2 start date for the trial draws near.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;In 2005, S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control began taking applications for hospital companies to build a second York County Hospital in Fort Mill, which has never had one.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;It also opened the competitive bidding process for the first time to companies that did not already have a presence in the county.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Piedmont Medical Center, Carolinas Healthcare System, Presbyterian Hospital and Hospital Partners of America all submitted bids. After public hearings in Fort Mill and Columbia, DHEC chose PMC to build the new 84-bed full service hospital off Hwy. 160 West. CHS and Presbyterian appealed the decision to the SCALC, and Hospital Partners protested the decision process to the U.S. Department of Justice, but did not appeal to SCALC.&quot;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;http://www.fortmilltimes.com/187/story/430161.html</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">77</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority d/b/a Carolinas Healthcare System and Presbyterian Healthcare System, d/b/a Presbyterian Hospital York, LLC, Petitioners vs. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and Amisub of South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a Piedmont Healthcare System d/b/a Fort Mill Medical Center, Respondents.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>mecklenburg-hospital-authority-vs-sc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1185</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Mecklenburg Hospital Authority vs. SC</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>bench trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-08-04T15:03:39-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>VG08405316</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Suit challenging the parcel tax-based funding of Alameda Public Schools.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;CVN recorded a prior hearing on a motion for summary judgment in the case. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">78</id>
    <industry>Real Estate</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District</official-case-name>
    <permalink>borikas-v-alameda-unified-sch</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Taxation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1194</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Borikas v. Alameda Unified Sch.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>bench trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-08-17T17:02:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">79</id>
    <industry>Energy</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State of Colorado v. Black Mountain Disposal</official-case-name>
    <permalink>state-of-co-v-black-mountain-disposal</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Accident Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1206</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>State of Co. v. Black Mountain Disposal</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">80</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Jeffrey Nikkila v. Ogihara America Corp.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>jeffrey-nikkila-v-ogihara-america-corp</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1219</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Jeffrey Nikkila v. Ogihara America Corp.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CGC-04-431105</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant> Micron Technology, Inc. et al</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The case is against Hynix, Micron, several of their subsidiaries and affiliates, and a number of unnamed co-conspirators. It alleges a continuing conspiracy, beginning in the mid-to-late 1990s, in which the defendant DRAM manufacturers conspired illegally, among other things, to share cost and pricing data and eliminate Rambus's RDRAM memory design from the market.&lt;BR/&gt; </description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">81</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Rambus Inc., v. Micron Technology, Inc.,A Delaware Corporation et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>rambus-v-micron</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Rambus Inc</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Patent</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">714</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Rambus v. Micron</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Suit alleging market manipulation</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-01T12:03:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC336090</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Jury trial in Los Angeles Superior Court's complex litigation division. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&quot;SANCTUARY FACE $50 MILLION CLAIM&quot;&lt;BR/&gt;Hot on the heels of Andy Taylor's resignation as Chairman, Sanctuary Music are now facing a $50 million lawsuit from Los Angeles based 5.1 Label Group. The suit alleges that Sanctuary failed to delivery between 140 and 220 albums from artists such as Meatloaf, Black Sabbath, Eric Clapton, Morrissey and Alison Moyet. 5.1 had planned to release the albums in the new dual disc format (DVD one side of the disc, CD on the auther). Douglas McArthur has stepped down as a non-executive of the Group.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">82</id>
    <industry>Recording</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>5.1 Label Group LLC v. Sanctuary Records</official-case-name>
    <permalink>51-label-group-llc-vs-sanctuary-records</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">763</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>5.1 Label Group v. Sanctuary Records</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-10-19T16:03:31-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>07-10051</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>5-7 day medical malpractice jury trial in Broward County Circuit Court's complex litigation division. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">83</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Pat Gervasio v. West Boca Medical Center, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>gervasio-v-west-boca-medical-center</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Medical Malpractice</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1193</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Gervasio v. West Boca Medical Center</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-01-12T12:02:22-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC324152</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">84</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Image Entertainment v. Ronald Kraft, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>image-entertainment-v-ronald-kraft-et</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1195</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Image Entertainment v. Ronald Kraft, et </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>07 CR 2122</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">85</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State of Kansas v. George R. Tiller</official-case-name>
    <permalink>kansas-v-tiller</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Criminal</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1203</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Kansas v. Tiller</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-A-532622C</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Southwest Airlines </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>A Southwest baggage handler injured and cause distress to an airline passenger, who was pulled out of his seat by the employee.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">86</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Steve Klemz v. Southwest Airlines </official-case-name>
    <permalink>klemz-vs-southwest</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Steve Klemz</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Tortious Negligence</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1217</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Klemz vs. Southwest</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Klemz was apparently injured by a Southwest baggage handler.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>817,516</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>City of Houston</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">87</id>
    <industry>Energy</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Maguire Oil Company, et al v. City of Houston, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>maguire-v-houston</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Maguire Oil Company</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Gov't</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1220</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Maguire v. Houston</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-A-52781-C</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Dr. Munawar Quarashi</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Quarashi was working as a physician at the Apex center in Las Vegas, and at some point decided to leave. Apex claims that before he left, he started moving patients away from the center and sending them to other doctors around town. Apex also claims that he violated his contract by disclosing information that should have remained confidential.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">88</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Apex Medical Center v. Dr. Munawar Quarashi</official-case-name>
    <permalink>apex-v-quarashi</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Apex Medical Center</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1223</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Apex v. Quarashi</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Waiting for Trial</status>
    <summary>Contract dispute.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>CV2006-018439</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Trial with complex litigation judge seeking to invalidate AZ Department of Environmental Quality's new regulations on air pollutants. Judge Burke previously ruled against the state, but AZ appealed and the case is now back for trial. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">89</id>
    <industry>Environmental</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Oak Canyon Manufacturing Inc. v. Arizona State Department Of Environmental Quality, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>oak-canyon-v-arizona-dept</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Environmental Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1225</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Oak Canyon v. Arizona Dept</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>DC-07-01898</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Judge Gena Slaughter - Dallas District Court&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;From the Dallas Morning News: &quot; Who has the &#8220;sniper&#8217;s perch&#8221; from the Texas School Book Depository building?&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;A resolution of that question and a long-standing legal dispute will take at least another three weeks.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Two men, Caruth Byrd and Aubrey Mayhew, claim to have possession of the building&#8217;s sixth-floor window through which Lee Harvey Oswald is accused of firing on President John F. Kennedy.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Byrd, of Van, Texas, sued Mayhew almost two years ago. He wants State District Judge Gena Slaughter to declare him the owner of the true window. He also wants the judge to either order Mayhew to return any window he took from the school book depository, &#8220;if such window exists,&#8221; or enter a court judgment against him for the window&#8217;s value. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">90</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Caruth Byrd v. Matthew Aubrey</official-case-name>
    <permalink>caruth-byrd-v-matthew-aubrey</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1226</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Caruth Byrd v. Matthew Aubrey</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>152847</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">91</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Inmates of Santa Barbara Jail v. County of Santa Barbara</official-case-name>
    <permalink>inmates-v-santa-barbara</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1183</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Inmates v. Santa Barbara</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>37-2007-00078637-CU-BC-CTL</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">92</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Lloyd Lake v. Lamar Griffin, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>lloyd-lake-v-lamar-griffin-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1202</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Lloyd Lake v. Lamar Griffin, et al. </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-3815</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">93</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: Zyprexa Products Liability Lit. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-zyprexa-products-liability-lit</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1181</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Zyprexa Products Liability Lit. </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">94</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Antrim County, et al v. Beeland Group, LLC, a subsidiary of CMS Energy</official-case-name>
    <permalink>antrim-county-et-al-v-beeland-group</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Energy</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1209</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Antrim County, et al v. Beeland Group</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-4822</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">95</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Deutsche Bank AG v. JP Morgan Chase Bank </official-case-name>
    <permalink>deutsche-bank-ag-v-jp-morgan-chase-bank</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1180</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Deutsche Bank AG v. JP Morgan Chase Bank</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-16723</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">96</id>
    <industry>Appeals</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>De Los Reyes v. Southwest Gas Corporation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>de-los-reyes-v-southwest-gas-corporatio</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1173</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>De Los Reyes v. Southwest Gas Corporatio</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-16908</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:31-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">97</id>
    <industry>Automotive</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>People of the State of California v. General Motors, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>california-v-general-motors-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Environmental</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1174</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>California v. General Motors, et al. </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-16736</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>9th Circuit OA's - Defendant's appeal of EDCA's granting plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction in suit seeking to block the seizure of gambling machines used by charitable organizations by the CA Bureau of Gaming. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">98</id>
    <industry>Not for Profit - Charitable</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Video Gaming Technologies, Inc. et al v. Bureau of Gambling Control, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>video-gaming-tech-v-bureau-of-gambling</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Art, Entertainment and Sports Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1175</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>VGT, Inc. v. Bureau of Gambling</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Oral Argument</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-11T15:02:47-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-3673</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">99</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Federman v. Artzt et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>federman-v-artzt-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Class action</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1176</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Federman v. Artzt et al</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-3674</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">100</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: Computer Associates 2002</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-computer-associates-2002</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1177</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Computer Associates 2002</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-5675</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">101</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Barroway v. Computer Associates</official-case-name>
    <permalink>barroway-v-computer-associates</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1178</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Barroway v. Computer Associates</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-5390</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">102</id>
    <industry>HR</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Diana Bell v. Pfizer Inc, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>diana-bell-v-pfizer-inc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Federal</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1179</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Diana Bell v. Pfizer Inc, et al</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC400362</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">103</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Thomas Riccio vs. Phillip McGraw, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>thomas-riccio-vs-phillip-mcgraw-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1196</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Thomas Riccio vs. Phillip McGraw, et al</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1316-VCP</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Summary judgment hearing. Plaintiff alleges misappropriation  of trade secrets by large pharmaceutical manufacturing company. </description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">104</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Beard Research, Inc v. Michael J. Kates, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>beard-research-inc-v-michael-j-kates-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">810</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Beard Research, Inc v. Michael J. Kates, et al</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>1-26 3 day trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4309-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Dow Chemical Co.</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Dow Chemical's refused to a complete a $14.5 billion takeover of Rohm and Haas Company, a specialty chemicals manufacturer. &lt;a href=&quot;http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/dealbook/chandlerdow021209.pdf&quot;&gt;Click here to read Chancellor Chandler's Decision in the Hearing to Exclude&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://content.courtroomview.com/docs/ROHMDOWCOMPLAINT.pdf&quot;&gt;Click here to view Rohm and Haas' Complaint&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://content.courtroomview.com/docs/DOWANSWER.pdf&quot;&gt;Click here to view Dow's answer&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">105</id>
    <industry>Chemical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dow Chemical Co.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>rohm-v-dow</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Rohm and Haas Co. </plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Mergers and Acquisitions</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1109</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Rohm v. Dow</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Suit involving $14.5 billion takeover of Rohm and Haas Co.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-11T15:02:47-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2007CA-007728-0000-LK</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">106</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Kendra Lymon v. Robert Paul Bohn</official-case-name>
    <permalink>lymon-v-bohn</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1128</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Lymon v. Bohn</short-case-name>
    <source>Other</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>06-17129</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">107</id>
    <industry>Housing</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>McHatten v. Chase Manhattan</official-case-name>
    <permalink>mchatten-v-chase-manhattan</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Federal</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1171</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>McHatten v. Chase Manhattan</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-74819</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Appeal of DOE's attempt to prohibit CA from imposing stricter greenhouse gas standards than those currently used by the federal government. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">108</id>
    <industry>Energy</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State of California v. U.S. Department of Energy, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>california-v-us-doe</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Environmental Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1172</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>California v. U.S. DOE</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>9th Circuit Court of Appeal oral argument</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>06CV1011</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">109</id>
    <industry>Education</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Brent Jaco v. Galveston Independent School District</official-case-name>
    <permalink>jaco-v-galvestoston-school-district</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Whistleblower</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1184</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Jaco v. Galvestoston School District</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-cv-11473</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Suit brought by former professor Ward Churchill alleging he was fired due to unpopular political views, not academic error as the university claims. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">110</id>
    <industry>Education</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ward Churchill v. University of Colorado</official-case-name>
    <permalink>churchill-v-u-of-colorado</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Education Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1200</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Churchill v. U. of Colorado</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-09T13:01:19-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>TK</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Arch Dioses </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Sideway was repeatedly abused. Case was settled with church. Trial scheduled to last 10 days.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">111</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Kevin Sideway v. Arch Dioses of Miami</official-case-name>
    <permalink>sideway-vs-dioses</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Kevin Sideway</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Fraud</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1213</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Sideway vs. Dioses </short-case-name>
    <source>Other</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>Abuse case.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3561-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Litigation re Microsoft/Yahoo buyout, settlement hearing. </description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">112</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-yahoo-inc-shareholders</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">674</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholders </short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Litigation re Microsoft/Yahoo buyout</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-5739</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">113</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>International Action Center v. City of New York</official-case-name>
    <permalink>iac-v-nyc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1165</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IAC v. NYC</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-4063</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">114</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Rubin Squared, Inc. v. Cambrex Corporation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>rubin-squared-v-cambrex</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1166</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Rubin Squared v. Cambrex</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>JCCP4396</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Short cause bench trial...part of a larger series of product liability cases. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;This class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff Jason Anderson&lt;BR/&gt;against General Motors (&#8220;GM&#8221;). Plaintiff claims that:&lt;BR/&gt;&#8226;&lt;BR/&gt;GM has an &#8220;Engine Knock Noise Adjustment Program&#8221; that&lt;BR/&gt;provides subject Silverado owners and lessees with an&lt;BR/&gt;extended warranty, GM Protection Plan (&#8220;GMPP&#8221;), or other&lt;BR/&gt;benefits for free when they complain of engine &#8220;knock, ping or&lt;BR/&gt;slap&#8221; noise.&lt;BR/&gt;&#8226;&lt;BR/&gt;GM failed to tell all owners and lessees of the subject vehicles&lt;BR/&gt;that they might be eligible to participate in the alleged&lt;BR/&gt;Adjustment Program.&lt;BR/&gt;&#8226;&lt;BR/&gt;GM&#8217;s conduct violates California&#8217;s &#8220;Secret Warranty&#8221; Law,&lt;BR/&gt;Cal. Civ. Code &#167; 1795.90 et seq., and the California Unfair&lt;BR/&gt;Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &amp; Prof. Code &#167; 17200 et seq. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">115</id>
    <industry>Automotive</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>General Motors Cases</official-case-name>
    <permalink>general-motors-cases</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">970</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>General Motors Cases</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary>product liability bench trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-0038</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">116</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In re: Salomon/Smith Barney Mutual Fund Fees Litigation </official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-salomonsmith-barney</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1162</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In re: Salomon/Smith Barney</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-3622</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">117</id>
    <industry>Education</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>DiGianni vs. Elliot Spitzer, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>digianni-vs-spitzer</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1163</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>DiGianni vs. Spitzer</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>S168047</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">118</id>
    <industry>Appeals</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Karen L. Strauss, et al. v. Mark D. Horton, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>strauss-et-al-v-horton-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1207</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Strauss, et al v. Horton, et al</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC350703</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">119</id>
    <industry>Benzene</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Whasam Park Et. Al. v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. Et. Al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>whasam-park-v-akzo-nobel</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Toxic Tort</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">903</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Whasam Park v. Akzo Nobel </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>hearing on motion to dismiss</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC300364</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>8/17 jury trial. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The lawsuit claims that Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  deceptively marketed the drug Estratest, falsely claiming it could treat hot flashes and had been approved by the FDA. The lawsuit asks the Court to award restitution, disgorgement, money damages, and injunctive relief. This lawsuit is not a case about personal injuries or wrongful death.&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">120</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Alexander, et al. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>alexander-et-al-v-solvay-pharma</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1125</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Alexander v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Hearing date set</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-07-07T12:02:24-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-5558</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">121</id>
    <industry>Telecom</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>emilio-v-sprint-spectrum-lp</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1159</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-5125</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">122</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Chilton et al v. Smith Barney Fund Management LLC et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>chilton-vs-smith-barney-fund</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1160</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Chilton vs. Smith Barney Fund</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-5257</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">123</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>The Chiumento Group, et al v. Smith Barney Fund Mgmt LLC, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>chiumento-group-vs-smith-barney</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1161</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Chiumento Group vs. Smith Barney</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-01802</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">124</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>National Federation of the Blind v. Target</official-case-name>
    <permalink>national-federation-of-the-blind-v-target</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">252</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC330098</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">125</id>
    <industry>Education</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Robin Singh Education Services v. Blueprint Test Preparation </official-case-name>
    <permalink>sing-education-services-v-blueprint</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">939</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Sing Education Services v. Blueprint</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>trial over stolen test prep instructional methods</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>06-4571</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">126</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Dorothy Presser, et al. vs. Key Food Stores Co-Operative, Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>presser-vs-key-food-stores</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1155</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Presser vs. Key Food Stores</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>08-0024</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:32-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">127</id>
    <industry>International</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Felix Vardanyan vs. Close-Up Int'l, Inc, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>vardanyan-vs-close-up-intl</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1158</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Vardanyan vs. Close-up Int'l</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>CIV477991  </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">128</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>People of the State of California v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>california-v-freedom-debt-relief-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1190</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>California v. Freedom Debt Relief, et al</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>preliminary injunction hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>05-cv-06283</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>AIG seeks to recover its stock from Starr International, valued at roughly $20 billion in 2005. The shares were used to fund an incentive compensation plan for AIG employees and were held by Starr International Co. Inc., now controlled by AIG's former CEO Maurice Greenberg. Greenberg allegedly gave Starr a stake in AIG both to protect the insurer from hostile takeover and also to fund the incentive compensation.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;AIG brought this suit against Mr. Greenberg and other former AIG officers and directors over control of the shares, alleging that, among other things, the defendants breached their fiduciary duty.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;On March 12, 2009 a New York appellate court rejected Greenberg's motion to stay proceedings until a related action in federal district court is resolved. </description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">129</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Starr International Company, Inc. v. American International Group, Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>starr-vs-aig</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1134</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Starr vs. AIG</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>AIG attempts to recover stock held by Starr</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-22T09:02:48-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>CACE06006045</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">130</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Thomas Glasson v. Jason Frost</official-case-name>
    <permalink>glasson-v-frost</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Medical Malpractice</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1149</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Glasson v. Frost</short-case-name>
    <source>West</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>07-4556</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">131</id>
    <industry>Appeals</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Hankins v. The New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>hankins-vs-united-methodist</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1152</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Hankins vs. United Methodist</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-5190</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">132</id>
    <industry>Insurance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Sompo Japan Ins. v. Union Pacific</official-case-name>
    <permalink>sompo-japan-ins-v-union-pacific</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Rail</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1153</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Sompo Japan Ins. v. Union Pacific</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-4739</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">133</id>
    <industry>Insurance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Sompo Japan Ins., et al v. Union Pacific, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>sompo-vs-union-pacific</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Rail</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1154</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Sompo vs. Union Pacific</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-5123</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">134</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Russell Prevost vs. City of Danbury, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>prevost-vs-danbury</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1157</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Prevost vs. Danbury</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>2007CA1786</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiff allegedly slipped on a wet floor in a Walmart store aisle and fell backwards, hitting his head on a pallet, resulting in herniated discs in his neck and back.  The plaintiff alleged that there were no warning cones blocking his access to or otherwise adequately protecting him from the dangerous condition.  The defendant claimed that it had been conscientious in keeping the floor clean, it provided adequate warning cones, and although the floor may have been shiny, it was not wet or slippery.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The jury found for the defendant.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">135</id>
    <industry>Retail</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Torres v. Walmart</official-case-name>
    <permalink>torres-v-wal-mart</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Tort Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1168</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Torres v. Walmart</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Slip &amp; Fall in Walmart</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-23T13:03:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>2006CA005393</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Contract dispute brought by former managing director of Sun Hydraulics, a NASDAQ traded corporation.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">136</id>
    <industry>Industrial</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Stegelmann v. Sun Hydraulics Corporation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>stegelmann-v-sun-hydraulics-corporation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1169</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Stegelmann v. Sun Hydraulics</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-28T13:02:42-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>0024422/2000</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">137</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Maria Swezey v. Montague Rehab and Pain Management, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>swezey-v-montague-rehab</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Medical Malpractice</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1182</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Swezey v. Montague Rehab</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>2005-CA-0712-13</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>4 day eminent domain jury trial. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">138</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Dept. of Transportation v. Kirchoff Parcel 102  &amp; 103</official-case-name>
    <permalink>dot-v-kirchoff</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Eminent domain</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1197</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>DOT v. Kirchoff</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-09-01T16:03:18-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>04CC08882</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Complex jury trial in real estate nondisclosure and construction suit in connection with defective construction of rear yard swimming pool.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">139</id>
    <industry>Construction</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Caporuscio v. Henrichsen</official-case-name>
    <permalink>caporuscio-v-henrichsen</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Constitutional law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1210</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Caporuscio v. Henrichsen</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>TK</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>William Klairmont</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">140</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>George Baldwin v. William Klairmont</official-case-name>
    <permalink>baldwin-v-klairmont</permalink>
    <plaintiff>George Baldwin </plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1216</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Baldwin v. Klairmont</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>Klairmont involved in 06' crash that left defendant paralyzed.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC368842</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">141</id>
    <industry>Construction</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Michael Bradford et al v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>bradford-v-aw-chesterton</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Toxic Tort</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1218</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Bradford v. A.W. Chesterton</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC375265</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>MARILYN MANSON's court showdown with former bandmate STEPHEN BIER has been delayed by two weeks, after a judge granted the keyboardist's lawyers extra time to study the shock rocker's financial records.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Manson is accused by Bier - also known by his stage name Madonna Wayne Gacy - of breach of contract. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">142</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Stephen Bier v. Brian Warner, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>stephen-bier-v-brian-warner-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1228</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Bier v. Warner (Marilyn Manson)</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-10-27T21:02:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>BC373776</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">143</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Brenda Williams v. Johnson &amp; Johnson ET AL </official-case-name>
    <permalink>williams-v-johnson-johnson</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1230</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Williams v. Johnson &amp; Johnson</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Asbestos exposure case. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:55-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1-08-CV-122444</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">144</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Kelley, et al. v. Rambus, Inc., et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>kelley-et-al-v-rambus-inc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1167</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Kelley, et al. v. Rambus, Inc., et al.</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-4720</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiffs appeal of CT district court's granting of defendant's motion for summary judgment in wrongful termination suit. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">145</id>
    <industry>Appeals</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Jane Consolie v. Walmart Stores, Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>consolie-v-walmart</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1135</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Consolie v. Walmart</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Appeal of CT district court's granting of summary judgment in wrongful termination suit. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-0042</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Defendants appeal of district court's denying defendant's motion to vacate default judgment. Defendant had failed to respond to suit alleging he defaulted on a 200k + promisary note. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">146</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Orix Financial Services v. Joseph F. Kielbasa</official-case-name>
    <permalink>orix-v-kielbasa</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Appeals</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1136</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Orix v. Kielbasa</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Defendant had failed to respond to suit alleging he defaulted on a 200k + promisary note. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2627-VCP</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Oral arguments on motion to compel discovery. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Suit alleges breach of collaborative agreement in pharmaceutical development effort between Siga and Pharmathene. &lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">147</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Pharmathene, Inc. v. Siga Technologies</official-case-name>
    <permalink>pharmathene-v-siga</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1198</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Pharmathene v. Siga</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Hearing date set</status>
    <summary>motion hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-01-25T16:02:22-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3967-VCS</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">148</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Barnard v. Green Fuel</official-case-name>
    <permalink>barnard-v-green-fuel</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1199</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Barnard v. Green Fuel</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC363959</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN/ALM</department>
    <description>status conference on 10/18</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">149</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>ESTUARADO ARDON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES </official-case-name>
    <permalink>ardon-v-los-angeles</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">187</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>ARDON V LOS ANGELES </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC294647</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN/ALM</department>
    <description>Bench trial in suit alleging UPS sought to illegally dismantle an existing owner-operated franchise structure after their takeover of Mail Boxes, Etc. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Courtroom View Network will provide daily blog coverage of the trial. Updates will be made twice daily, once during the lunch break and again at the end of afternoon proceedings. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;For more detail about the case, visit &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bluemaumau.org/7745/publishers_jointly_offer_daily_coverage_ups_store_trial&quot;&gt;Blue MauMau.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">150</id>
    <industry>Shipping</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Morgate LLC vs. United Parcel Service</official-case-name>
    <permalink>morgate-llc-v-ups</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">703</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Morgate LLC v. UPS</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>Class action against UPS</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-07T07:04:37-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>808</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">151</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Hitchens and Long vs. Hastings</official-case-name>
    <permalink>hitchens-and-long-vs-hastings</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1124</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Hitchens and Long vs. Hastings</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>AG088371598</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Chase </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Civil collections case.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">152</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Capital One Bank v. Chase</official-case-name>
    <permalink>capital-v-chase</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Capital One </plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1215</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Capital v. Chase</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>Collections</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC322412</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Underlying case involved alleged toxic tort based on alleged pesticide use at banana plantations in Costa Rica.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;This hearing was for a forum non conveniens motion, from which defendant Dole had withdrawn at the last minute.  Dow, Shell, Chiquita, Del Monte did not withdraw, and suggested that no further briefing was necessary.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">153</id>
    <industry>Agriculture</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Angel Abarca Abarca et al v. Dole Food Company Inc, et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>abarca-et-al-v-dole</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Tort Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">299</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Abarca v. Dole </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Formum non conveniens motion</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-10-22T15:02:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC388904</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">154</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>JANE DOE v. SPLASH NEWS &amp; PICTURE AGENCY INC ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>jane-doe-v-splash-news-picture-agency-inc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1071</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>JANE DOE v. SPLASH NEWS &amp; PICTURE AGENCY INC ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Settled</status>
    <summary>5-7 day jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3824</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiff alleges she was forced to move out due to presence of mold, which the seller failed to disclose. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">155</id>
    <industry>Construction</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Bell v. Townsend</official-case-name>
    <permalink>bell-v-townsend</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Real property</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1121</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Bell v. Townsend</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Settled</status>
    <summary>Trial over real property dispute</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4061</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">156</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Pues v. Simpson</official-case-name>
    <permalink>pues-v-simpson</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Property rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1122</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Pues v. Simpson</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>property ownership dispute</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3:07-cv-00623</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">157</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Eppendorf A.G. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>eppendorf-ag-v-bio-rad-laboratories-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">603</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>JCCP4032</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Wyeth</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Suit alleging that various pharmaceutical companies failed to disclose the potential side effects of Fen Phen, a popular diet medication, which included primary hypertension and valve disease. </description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">158</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Diet Drug Cases</official-case-name>
    <permalink>diet-drug-cases</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Jessie Kohler</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Products Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">621</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Diet Drug Cases</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>motion hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T10:02:32-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>07CC05400</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">159</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Harvey v. City Of Newport Beach    </official-case-name>
    <permalink>harvey-vs-city-of-newport-beach</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1058</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name> HARVEY VS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH  </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2443-VCP</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">160</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Unruh v. Johnson</official-case-name>
    <permalink>unruh-v-johnson</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Property rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1123</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Unruh v. Johnson</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>04CC00138</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:33-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">161</id>
    <industry>Insurance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Johnson vs. Robert Moreno Insurance Service</official-case-name>
    <permalink>johnson-vs-moreno</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1141</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Johnson vs. Moreno</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>JCCP004470</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Individual trial in coordinated combined judicial proceeding case seeking refunds from online dating service due to violations of the California Dating Service Contract Act. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1148461530276</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">162</id>
    <industry>E-commerce</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>RE: Great Expectations Cases</official-case-name>
    <permalink>re-great-expectations-cases</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1142</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>RE: Great Expectations Cases</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>bench trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-08-17T17:02:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>99-019945</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">163</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Oliveira v. Public Storage, Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>oliveira-v-public-storage</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Accident Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1148</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Oliveira v. Public Storage</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>04-A-488234</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Wyeth and its divisions; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc and ESI Lederle, Pharmacia and Upjohn Company, Pharmacia Corporation; Pfizer Inc, Greenstone LTD; Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Barr Laboratories; Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. previously known as Reid Rowell Inc.; Annette Stephens Stephen Titzer, Jennifer Jorgensen, and Brett Hendricks and DOES 1-25 </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Concerns Wyeth's hormone replacement drugs linked to breast cancer.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">164</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Marsha R. Gray v. Wyeth et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>gray-vs-wyeth</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Marsha R. Gray</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1156</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Gray vs. Wyeth</short-case-name>
    <source>Party/Firm Involved in Case</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CACE03021697</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The Ferlanti case was a 10-day jury trial for a plaintiff who died at age 81 of lung cancer after suffering chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as a result of cigarette smoking for over 55 years.  The jury awarded the plaintiff $700,000 against Liggett Group (a part of Vector Tobacco and Vector Group).&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;This was the second &quot;Engle&quot; tobacco case to go to trial after a Broward County jury awarded nearly $8 million to the widow of a smoker who died from lung cancer in Hess v. RJ Reynolds.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">165</id>
    <industry>Tobacco</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ferlanti v. Liggett Group</official-case-name>
    <permalink>ferlanti-v-liggett-group</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Products Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1192</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Ferlanti v. Liggett Group</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Second &quot;Engle&quot; tobacco suits to go to trial in Florida</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T10:02:32-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-cv-1756</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">166</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Wright v. Gemini Air Cargo, Inc. et. al,</official-case-name>
    <permalink>wright-v-gemini</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1212</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Wright v. Gemini</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC316318</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN/ALM</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">167</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Anita Busch v Anthony Pellicano et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>pellicano-wiretapping-civil-suit</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Busch v Pellicano</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">22</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Pellicano Wiretapping Civil Suit</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-0830</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">168</id>
    <industry>Appeals</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Bader v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>bader-v-the-goldman-sachs-group</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1131</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Bader v. The Goldman Sachs Group</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-2825-BK</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">169</id>
    <industry>Bankruptcy</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Lone Star Air Partners, LLC v. Delta Air Lines, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>lone-star-v-delta</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Appeals</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1133</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Lone Star v. Delta </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3909-VCP</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Toxic tort trial alleging underwater ground contamination by pesticides. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">170</id>
    <industry>Chemical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Amanda Gonye v. Toll Brothers, Inc</official-case-name>
    <permalink>amanda-gonye-v-toll-brothers-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Toxic Tort</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">965</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Amanda Gonye v. Toll Brothers, Inc</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary>Toxic tort trial alleging underwater ground contamination by pesticides. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>JCCP4247</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Order to Show Cause re: dismissal hearing in Vioxx litigation. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">171</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Vioxx Cases</official-case-name>
    <permalink>vioxx-cases</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Products Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">975</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Vioxx Cases</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Vioxx litigation</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T10:02:32-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4072</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The widow of a former director in the Howard Hughes Corp. seeks indemnification and advancement of fees he incurred in his capacity as director during length litigation over the Hughes estate. The dispute began after a supposed &quot;holographic will&quot; emerged in storage at the headquarters for the LDS Church after Hughes' death. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">172</id>
    <industry>Legal</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Gay v. Howard Hughes Corp. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>gay-vs-howard-hughes</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Legal fees</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1120</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Gay vs. Howard Hughes</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2008CV152463</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Motions for stay and dismissal in case involving basis-shifting (BOSS) revenue transactions that the defendant used as tax shelter to protect capital gains revenue from taxation after the sale of the defendant's medical supplies businesses.  The tax shelter, however, turned out to be illegal, and the defendant ended up having to pay $13M to the IRS, and sought to recover damages from those that had marketed the shelter.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The defendant requested a stay pending resolution of a federal case in Florida allegedly involving the same parties, witnesses, documents, and claims, some of which had settled in Florida, and which would allegedly have res judicata and collateral estoppel effect in the Georgia action, and would be dispositive of the Georgia action.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The plaintiff claimed that most of the parties in Georgia were not parties in Florida, and would not even be subject to jurisdiction in Florida; therefore, the Georgia issues would eventually have to be resolved anyway, and so judicial economy would not warrant a stay.  Further, issue and claim preclusion would not apply without identity of parties.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">173</id>
    <industry>Accounting</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Bryan Ventures Inc, et al v. Gainor, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>bryan-ventures-v-gainor</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Taxation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1084</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Bryan Ventures v. Gainor</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Motion for Stay</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-09-16T13:03:17-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-5548</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">174</id>
    <industry>Appeals</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Mental Hygiene Services v. Elliot Spitzer, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>mental-hygiene-legal-services-v-spitzer</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1129</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Mental Hygiene Legal Services v. Spitzer</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-2523</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">175</id>
    <industry>Appeals</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Johannes Van Aggelen v. United Nations, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>aggelen-v-united-nations</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1130</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Aggelen v. United Nations</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-5548</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">176</id>
    <industry>Marine</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>George and Baxter v. Division of Coastal Resources, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>baxter-v-dcr-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Appeals</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1132</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Baxter v. DCR, et al. </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-56422</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Oral arguments on district court decision to grant injunction blocking 10% across the board cuts to Medi-Cal state health care system. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Being heard with:&lt;BR/&gt;08-56551, 08-57016</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">177</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Independent Living Center of So. Calif., et al. v. Shewry</official-case-name>
    <permalink>ilcsc-v-shewry</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Health Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1140</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>ILCSC v. Shewry</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Oral Argument</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T10:02:32-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3:08-cv-00052</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">178</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>DEB Worldwide Healthcare v. Betco Corp.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>deb-worldwide-healthcare-v-betco-corp</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">600</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:56-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1884</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Halverson, Viking Global Finance</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Post-trial oral arguments after Vice Chancellor Lamb ruled the statute of frauds applied to an LLC agreement. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Brian Olson was one of three co-founders of long/short equity hedge fund Viking Global Management, along with David Ott and Andreas Halverson.  Olson sought to recover pursuant to a termination provision in an LLC agreement that provided for various equity and income splits among the three owners, but gave Halverson majority rights.  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Viking generated revenue by charging a 1.5% management fee for funds invested, plus 20% of any profits gained.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">179</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Olson v. Halvorson, Viking Global Finance</official-case-name>
    <permalink>olson-v-halverson</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Brian Olson</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">958</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Olson v. Halvorson</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Trial after Vice Chancellor Lamb ruled the statute of frauds applied to an LLC agreement. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-07T07:04:37-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">180</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Tivo vs. Echostar</official-case-name>
    <permalink>tivo-vs-echostar</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1078</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Tivo vs. Echostar</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CV2007-010846</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">181</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>American Communications LLC vs. Greater Bethel A M E Community Corporation, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>n</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1091</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>n  </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Settled</status>
    <summary>2-17 jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>A5338297</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Ford Motor Company </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Polly Ann Gonzalez was a reporter with a Las Vegas television station. She was in her Ford Explorer in 2005 with her two daughters when she lost control and the vehicle rolled. She died at the scene. The lawsuit claims that the vehicle did not handle the impact as it should have, that her seatbelt failed, that the vehicle's faulty design caused her to lose control, among other concerns.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">182</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>The Estate of Polly Ann Gonzalez by Allan J. Mota, Administrator and Sabrina Marie Mota and Gabriella Monique Mota, Minors, by their Guardian and Litem, Allan J. Mota vs. Ford Motor Company a Delaware Corporation, Silver State Ford d/b/a a Gaudin Ford, a Nevada corporation and Black and White Corporations I through X</official-case-name>
    <permalink>polly-gonzalez-v-ford-motor</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Polly Gonzalez</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>wrongful death</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1105</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Polly Gonzalez v. Ford Motor</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-A-535439-B</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Southwest Exchange Inc. </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Several defendants involved over loan including Citibank, millions involved. </description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">183</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Sunset-Pecos Ltd Partnership v. Southwest Exchange Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>sunset-v-southwest</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Sunset-Pecos Ltd Partnership </plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1110</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Sunset v. Southwest</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Several defendants involved over loan including Citibank.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>2036</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Hearing on cross motions for summary judgment. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Suit seeks to enjoin defendants from transferring certain property's waste management and sewer services to a new company, in violation of Delaware law. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">184</id>
    <industry>Municipal services</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Public Service Commission of the State of Delaware v. Utility Systems Inc, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>public-service-commission-v-de</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Public utilities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1119</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Public Service Commission v. DE</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>CV2006-12202</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">185</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Nitzel v. Hilton Corp. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>nitzel-v-hilton-corp</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1138</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Nitzel v. Hilton Corp. </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>CV2007-020708</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">186</id>
    <industry>Construction</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Kitchell Contractors v. RMI Ready Mix</official-case-name>
    <permalink>kitchell-v-rmi</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1139</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Kitchell v. RMI</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC271474</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">187</id>
    <industry>Insurance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Truck Insurance Exchange v. Union Oil Company of California, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>truck-insurance-exchange-v-union-oil</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1151</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Truck Insurance Exchange v. Union Oil</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>BC377279</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>American International Specialty Lines </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">188</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Modern Continental Roadway Construction v. American International Specialty Lines </official-case-name>
    <permalink>modern-continental-v-american-intl</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Modern Continental Roadway Construction</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Insurance Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1186</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Modern Continental v. American Intl. </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Jury trial for insurance coverage</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>BC385305</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Fortune Market Media </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Concerns contractual fraud </description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">189</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Grease Monkey Racing inc. et al. v. Fortune Market Media Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>grease-monkey-vs-fortune-market</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Grease Monkey Racing Inc. ET AL</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1187</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Grease Monkey vs. Fortune Market </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary>Jury trial for a contractual fraud case </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2004-005511-CA-01</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Contract/indebtedness trial filed in 2004. Waiting for more information from court clerk, but case seems unremarkable other than the fact it hasn't settled. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">190</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Fenix Contractors vs. Artisan XS Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>fenix-contractors-vs-artisan-xs-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1188</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Fenix Contractors vs. Artisan XS Inc. </short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:34-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>With a decision yesterday by the Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals, three female employees accusing the Toledo Fire Department of gender discrimination can take their case to trial.</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">191</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>STACHURA v. CITY OF TOLEDO </official-case-name>
    <permalink>stachura-v-toledo</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">791</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>STACHURA v. TOLEDO </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2939-VCS</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">192</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Security Networks LLC v. Alarm One Inc</official-case-name>
    <permalink>security-networks-llc-v-alarm-one-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1064</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Security Networks LLC v. Alarm One Inc</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>hearing on defendant's objection to master's report</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-15913 </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">193</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Howard v. Gap, Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>howard-v-gap-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1103</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Howard v. Gap, Inc. </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number> 08CVS09546</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>City of Charlotte</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">194</id>
    <industry>Construction</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Crowder Construction Company v. City of Charlotte</official-case-name>
    <permalink>crowder-v-charlotte</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Crowder Construction Company</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Constitutional law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1108</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Crowder v. Charlotte</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>motion hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:06-cv-05859</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">195</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Universidad De Las Californias, S.C. v. Mayfair Advisors, Ltd.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>universidad-d-l-californias-v-mayfair</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1076</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Universidad D L Californias v. Mayfair</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-16440</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">196</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Long, et al v. Hewlett-Packard</official-case-name>
    <permalink>long-et-al-v-hewlett-packard</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1101</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Long, et al v. Hewlett-Packard</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-16346</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">197</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>O'Bryan v. Pfizer, Inc., et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>obryan-v-pfizer-inc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1102</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>O'Bryan v. Pfizer, Inc., et al</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>3780</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiffs allege that defendants, as directors of Cobart and Orpipaya Mining, breached their fiduciary duty to Energy Coal and Italiana Coke, both of which invested in Cobart and Oripaya. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">198</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Energy Coal SPA v. Luca Minna</official-case-name>
    <permalink>energy-coal-v-minna</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Shareholder litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1118</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Energy Coal v. Minna</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>1 day trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08CVS14248</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">199</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Stroock, Stroock &amp; Lavan v. Dorf</official-case-name>
    <permalink>stroock-stroock-lavan-v-dorf</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1086</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Stroock, Stroock &amp; Lavan v. Dorf</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>hearing on motion to dismiss</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-4093-cv </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">200</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Smith v. Bank of America, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>smith-v-boa</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1088</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Smith v. BOA</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-4103</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">201</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Pappas v. Bank of America, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>pappas-v-boa</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1089</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Pappas v. BOA</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>2nd circuit oral arguments</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-17232</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Appeal of injunction granted by AZ district court in case brought by flight attendant union to halt changes to working conditions made by employer under the Railway Labor Act. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">202</id>
    <industry>Transportation</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ass'n of Flight Attendants v. Mesa Air Group</official-case-name>
    <permalink>afa-v-mesa-air-group</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1094</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>AFA v. Mesa Air Group</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-07T17:01:44-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-15357</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Appeal of California district court's granting of defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs (body shop owners) dispute the methods used to determine the &quot;prevailing auto body rate&quot; - a metric required by the state legislature to give uniformity to auto repair billing practices. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">203</id>
    <industry>Insurance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Walker v. GEICO Insurance</official-case-name>
    <permalink>walker-v-geico</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1095</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Walker v. GEICO </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>9th Circuit oral arguments re: determination of the &quot;prevailing auto body rate&quot; for Califonia</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T10:02:32-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-16326</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">204</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports US, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>chapman-v-pier-1</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1099</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Chapman v. Pier 1 </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-16356</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">205</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Satterfield v. Simon &amp; Schuster, Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>satterfield-v-simon-schuster</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1100</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Satterfield v. Simon &amp; Schuster</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC386889</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Clear Channel Holdings Inc.</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">206</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Carpenter Plaza LLC v. Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings </official-case-name>
    <permalink>carpenter-v-clear-channel</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Carpenter Plaza LLC</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1112</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Carpenter v. Clear Channel</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Fraud Case</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3331</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>3 day trial seeks a court appointed receiver for True Product ID Inc, an insolvent Delaware corporation. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;True Product ID is a publicly traded company that specializes in surveillance and tracking technology. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">207</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: True Product ID, Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-true-product-id-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1117</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: True Product ID, Inc. </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>3 day trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-25325</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">208</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Beauchamp vs. Publix Super Markets</official-case-name>
    <permalink>beauchamp-vs-publix-super-markets</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Tortious Negligence</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1164</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Beauchamp vs. Publix Super Markets</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CV2007-004533</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">209</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Schlicht vs. Oliver Exterminating of Arizona</official-case-name>
    <permalink>dfg</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1090</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>dfg</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Settled</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:57-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-16285</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">210</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Tang vs. Shell Chemical Company, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>tang-vs-shell-chemical-company-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1093</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Tang vs. Shell Chemical Company, et al.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC397476</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Gene Simmons</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Allan Brown wants unspecified damages and compensation for fraud and slander by Gene Simmons (of KISS). </description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">211</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Allan Brown v. Gene Simmons et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>brown-v-simmons</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Allan Brown</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1111</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Brown v. Simmons </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Fraud Case </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">212</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Duplicate</official-case-name>
    <permalink>hasso-v-capital-finance-inc-ric369859</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">151</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Hasso v. Capital Finance Inc (RIC369859)</short-case-name>
    <source>Other</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-cv-00910</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">213</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Trump v. Simdag/Robel, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>trump-v-simdagrobel-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">420</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-cv-01658</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">214</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>oracle-corporation-et-al-v-sap-ag-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">461</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3621-VCN</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Hearing for plaintiff's motion on declaratory judgment and defendants' cross motion for summary judgment.</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">215</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In re: NYMEX Shareholder Litigation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-nymex-shareholder-litigation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">644</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>NYMEX Shareholder Litigation</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>shareholder litigation</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T11:02:34-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2008-037569-CA-01</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>11-17 trial in Miami</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">216</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Freshpoint A One A Produce &amp; Dairy V. Merco Group At BB Hotel (LLC)</official-case-name>
    <permalink>freshpoint-a-one-a-produce-dairy-v-me</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">977</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>FRESHPOINT A ONE A PRODUCE &amp; DAIRY v. ME</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Settled</status>
    <summary>11-17 trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2005CV97274</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>In this class action, plaintiffs are suing EarthLink over millions of dollars of allegedly unfair early termination fees. Each time an EarthLink customer canceled their services early, or in the case of three class representatives, simply upgraded their services or moved residences, they were charged $149.95 in penalty fees.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Plaintiffs assert, in their complaint, that these fees are unreasonable and far exceed any &quot;legitimate measure of liquidated damages.&quot;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Additionally, plaintiffs take issue with how the penalties were collected, stating that it was not a voluntary payment, and instead that EarthLink charged the plaintiff's credit cards without notifying them.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://spivahartnett.com/cases/EarthlinkAmendedComplaint.pdf&quot;&gt;Complaint (PDF)&lt;/a&gt; in the case.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">217</id>
    <industry>Telecommunication</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Deborah Eaves, William O'Hara, and David Tegart, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Earthlink, Inc</official-case-name>
    <permalink>eaves-v-earthlink</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1083</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Eaves v. Earthlink</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Early cell phone termination fee class action. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-06T17:01:20-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4050-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiffs are nominal shareholders and directors of Ameristar, a publicly traded corporation that operates hotels and casinos across Las Vegas and the Gulf Coast. They seek a declaration by the Chancery Court that they are the sole and lawful directors of the company after a recent reorganization. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">218</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Noe v. Kropf</official-case-name>
    <permalink>noe-v-kropf</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1113</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Noe v. Kropf</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are the sole and lawful directors of the company.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3512-VCS</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>5-day bench trial. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Suit alleges that Kirkland violated his employment agreement with Agilent, a spin-off of HP that manufactures materials used in analytic chemistry. Plaintiffs allege Kirkland disclosed proprietary trade secret information.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Agilent is traded on the NYSE. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">219</id>
    <industry>Chemical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Agilent Technologies, Inc vs. Joseph Kirkland</official-case-name>
    <permalink>agilent-vs-kirkland</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1114</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Agilent vs. Kirkland</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>bench trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-08-27T16:23:17-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4238-VCN</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiff, Kuhn Construction, was awarded a $10 million+ contract for wharf construction from DSPC, a mixed private/gov't entity. Kuhn Construction claims that, due to faulty architectural plan data, they had to incur additional construction costs beyond the amount awarded in the original contracts. Defendants claim dispute must be resolved in arbitration rather than in the Chancery Court.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">220</id>
    <industry>Construction</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Kuhn Construction, Inc v. Diamond State Port Corp. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>kuhn-v-diamond-state</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Construction Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1115</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Kuhn v. Diamond State</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-07-28T15:02:30-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4091</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:35-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>hearing on motion to dismiss</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">221</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: Arrowhead Investments, LLC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-arrowhead-investments</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1116</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Arrowhead Investments</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>hearing on motion to dismiss</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-20346</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Ernest Harrel filed suit for wrongful imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress after he was arrested for grand larceny at a Jorge &amp; Gerry's in 2004. All criminal charges were later dropped. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">222</id>
    <industry>Law Enforcement</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ernest Harrell v. Jorge &amp; Gerry's, Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>harrell-v-jorge-gerrys</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1147</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Harrell v. Jorge &amp; Gerry's</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Suit alleging wrongful imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T11:02:34-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC392085</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">223</id>
    <industry>Telecom</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>People Of The State Of California v. Time Warner Inc Et Al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>ca-vs-time-warner</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1021</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>CA vs. Time Warner</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2008CV018220</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Legality of madatory sick leave mandate.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">224</id>
    <industry>Employment</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce Inc v. Milwaukee City</official-case-name>
    <permalink>mmac-v-city-of-milwaukee</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Labor and Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1069</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>MMAC v. City of Milwaukee</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Legality of madatory sick leave mandate.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T11:02:34-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC320596</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">225</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ins.Commr. Of The State Of CA v. Concentra Managed Care </official-case-name>
    <permalink>ca-vs-concentra</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1087</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>CA vs. Concentra</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>motion hearing/oral argument</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>2:207cv00359</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Ascential Software Corporation, Business Objects SA, Business Objects America, CA, Inc. Cognos, Inc. Cognos Corporation, DataMirror Inc., Fiorano Software, Inc., Hummingbird LTD, Microsoft Corporation, Etc </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Intellectual Property Suit (Patent Infringement) </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">226</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>JuxtaComm Tech Inc. v. Ascential Software Corp et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>juxtacomm</permalink>
    <plaintiff>JuxtaComm Technologies, Inc.</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Patent</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1040</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>JuxtaComm </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>03-cv-08975</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">227</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Bukovinsky v. Sullivan County Div.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>bukovinsky-v-sullivan-county-div</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1056</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Bukovinsky v. Sullivan County Div.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2009-80000137</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>California's governor was authorized to reduce the workweek through a furlough of represented state employees, and the reduction in pay corresponding to the hours not worked did not amount to a modification of established salary ranges in violation of California Government Code s. 19826(b), despite a contention that the furlough would not actually result in fewer hours worked.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;In response to California's budget crisis, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-16-08 implementing a 2-day-per-month involuntary furlough of represented state employees.  The represented employees argued that because their offices would not in fact close, they would not in fact work fewer hours, and they would not be able to subsequently use their furlough days before the days expired, and thus the practical effect of the order was a salary reduction with no reduction in hours.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">228</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>California Correctional Peace Officers v. Schwarzenegger</official-case-name>
    <permalink>ccpo-vs-schwarzenegger</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1137</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>CCPO vs. Schwarzenegger</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Public Union's Challenge to Involuntary Furlough Program</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-07T17:01:45-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>26,322</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">229</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Gilbert Armijo and Maria Casaus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Sam's Club</official-case-name>
    <permalink>gilbert-armijo-vs-wal-mart</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">291</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>GILBERT ARMIJO VS WAL MART </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>07-A-542505-C</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Performance Marketing and Advertising</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">230</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Matteson Media Inc. V. Performance Marketing and Advertising </official-case-name>
    <permalink>matteson-v-performance-marketing</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Matteson Media Inc.</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1106</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Matteson V. Performance Marketing </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>04-cv-1709</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Suit brought by the state's attorney general against Pfizer's Pharmacia unit and other pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging they overcharged the state's Medicaid system. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Litigation over &quot;average wholesale prices&quot; for medication charged to state Medicaid systems is increasing, and this is the first time Pfizer will face such accusations before a state jury. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;View a free video clip from this case:&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=b412894d0b86458297dc5db4e3237b4a&quot;&gt;Defense Attorney, John Dodds, Closing Statement -- Clip 1&lt;/a&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">231</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State of Wisconsin v. Abbott Laboratories et al  </official-case-name>
    <permalink>wisconsin-v-abbot-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Health Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1144</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Wisconsin v. Abbott Laboratories</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>State attorney general average wholesale price Medicaid fraud suit</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-06T17:01:20-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-cv-4650</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">232</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Justin Myers v. County of Amador</official-case-name>
    <permalink>myers-v-count-of-amador</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1045</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Myers v. Count of Amador</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:58-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2007-31681-CA-01</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Two real estate investors litigating after a joint investment declined sharply in value.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">233</id>
    <industry>Real Estate</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Arrondo, Luis Alejo v. Cossio, Alejandra </official-case-name>
    <permalink>arrondo-v-cossio</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Real Property</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1072</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Arrondo v. Cossio</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Two real estate investors litigating after a joint investment declined sharply in value.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T11:02:34-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>GC036944</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Parsons Infrastructure </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Breach of contract case.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">234</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Fiber Technology Corporation  v. Parsons Infrastructure </official-case-name>
    <permalink>fiber-tech-v-parsons-infrastructure</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Fiber Technology </plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1107</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Fiber Tech v. Parsons Infrastructure </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:07-cv-11074</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Trial</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">235</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>The Museum of Modern Art et al v. Schoeps</official-case-name>
    <permalink>moma-v-schoeps</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">637</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>MOMA v. Schoeps</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CACE07011513</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Stuart Hess's widow Elaine Hess sued cigarette maker Philip Morris, claiming that her husband could not stop smoking because he was addicted to nicotine.  Mr. Hess died of lung cancer at age 55, in 1997.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Hess v. RJR Reynolds was the first of the &quot;Engle progeny&quot; tobacco liability suits to go to trial.  The jury awarded $8M to the smoker's widow and her son.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">236</id>
    <industry>Tobacco</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Hess v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>hess-v-rj-reynolds</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Elaine Hess</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Products Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">931</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">true</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Hess v. RJ Reynolds</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Individual tobacco case stemming from class action. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-11-16T07:02:55-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06CVS08416</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">237</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Vernon v. Cuomo</official-case-name>
    <permalink>vernon-v-cuomo</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1047</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Vernon v. Cuomo</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-cv-05113</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">238</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Gusmao v. GMT Group, Inc.,</official-case-name>
    <permalink>gusmao-v-gmt-group-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1057</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Gusmao v. GMT Group, Inc.,</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>RIC369859</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">239</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Hasso v. Capital Finance Inc  </official-case-name>
    <permalink>hasso-vs-capital-finance-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1073</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>HASSO VS CAPITAL FINANCE INC </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CV2006-017528</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">240</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Brantley vs. Pacific Family Medicine</official-case-name>
    <permalink>brantley-vs-pacific-family-medicine</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1092</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Brantley vs. Pacific Family Medicine</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Settled</status>
    <summary>medmal jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-46924</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">241</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Nelson vs. Wal Mart Stores</official-case-name>
    <permalink>nelson-vs-wal-mart-stores</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1104</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Nelson vs. Wal Mart Stores</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>employment discrimination trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2291</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">242</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Whittington vs. Dragon Group LLC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>whittington-vs-dragon-group-llc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1062</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Whittington vs. Dragon Group LLC</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>post trial oral arguments</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>7:07-cr-01027</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">243</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>USA v. Bernard B. Kerik</official-case-name>
    <permalink>usa-v-bernard-b-kerik</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Criminal</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">334</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>USA v. Bernard B. Kerik</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2008-80000126</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Arnold Schwarzenegger</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The Professional Engineers in California Government and the California Association of Professional Scientists claim the governor needs legislative approval to force furloughs for state workers.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">244</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Professional Engineers in California Government v. Arnold Schwarzenegger</official-case-name>
    <permalink>engineers-v-schwarzenegger</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Professional Engineers in California Government</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1070</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Engineers v. Schwarzenegger</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Plaintiffs claim the governor needs legislative approval to force furloughs for state workers.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-07T17:01:45-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07CC01249</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>status conference 10/22/08</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">245</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>BROADCOM CORPORATION VS QUALCOMM INC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>broadcom-corporation-vs-qualcomm-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Patent</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">286</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>BROADCOM CORPORATION VS QUALCOMM INC</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-4646</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>This Engle-progeny tobacco case involves a life-long smoker who allegedly started smoking when he was 12 years old.  He died of lung cancer and esophageal cancer.  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The plaintiff claimed that the smoker was addicted to cigarettes that contained nicotine, and that the nicotine addiction caused his death.  The defense claimed that the smoker chose to smoke and wanted to smoke, for most of his life.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff and found damages of $1.2M.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">246</id>
    <industry>Tobacco</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Brown vs. RJ Reynolds</official-case-name>
    <permalink>brown-vs-rj-reynolds</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Products Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1046</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Brown vs. RJ Reynolds</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-07-02T12:04:52-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>183, 2008 </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">247</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>McNally v. State  </official-case-name>
    <permalink>mcnally-v-state</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1096</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>McNally v. State</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>419, 2008</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">248</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Nasser v. Dweck </official-case-name>
    <permalink>nasser-v-dweck</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1097</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Nasser v. Dweck </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>431, 2008</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">249</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Bromstad-Deturk v. State Farm </official-case-name>
    <permalink>bromstad-deturk-v-state-farm</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1098</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Bromstad-Deturk v. State Farm </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>MER-L-2691-04</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Suit brought by the Rutgers University Constitutional Litigation Clinic against the state of New Jersey alleging that electronic voting machines manufactured by Sequoia Voting Systems could potentially be hacked and should be banned from use in future New Jersey elections. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The New Jersey Attorney General's office is collaborating with Sequoia to defend the efficacy and security of the &quot;Sequoia Advantage&quot; electronic voting machine. </description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">250</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Reed Gusciora, et al. v. James E. McGreevey, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>gusciora-v-mcgreevey</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Science and Computer Technologies Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1034</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Gusciora v. McGreevey</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Suit seeking to ban electronic Sequoia voting machines from use in future NJ elections</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T11:02:34-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>0007668/2006</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:36-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">251</id>
    <industry>Tobacco</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>DAY WHOLESALE, INC. v. STATE OF NEW YORK</official-case-name>
    <permalink>day-wholesale-inc-v-state-of-new-york</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1060</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>DAY WHOLESALE, INC. v. STATE OF NEW YORK</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3:07-cv-00635</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">252</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Silicon Image, Inc. v. Analogix Semiconductor, Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>silicon-image-inc-v-analogix-semiconductor-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Patent</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">557</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Silicon Image, Inc. v. Analogix Semiconductor, Inc.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:04:59-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>04-A-497002-C</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Desert Foods Distributing Inc. </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Trial date to begin on 1/26/2009.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">253</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Nevada State Bank v Desert Foods Distributing Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>nv-state-bank-desert-foods</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Nevada State Bank </plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1041</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>NV State Bank, Desert Foods </short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1480-VCP</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Shareholder Dispute</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">254</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Kates, Michael J v. Beard Research Inc</official-case-name>
    <permalink>kates-michael-j-v-beard-research-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1075</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Kates, Michael J v. Beard Research Inc</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Shareholder Dispute</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4171-VCL</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Josie Senesie </defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>This case arises from an attempt to wrest control over the business and affairs of CIGNA Worldwide Insurance Company  a solvent Delaware corporation, from its duly-elected Board of Directors by a Liberian receiver appointed by a Liberian court, with purported authority over the Liberian branch of the Company.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">255</id>
    <industry>Insurance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Cigna Worldwide Insurance Co v. Josie Senesie </official-case-name>
    <permalink>cigna-v-senesie</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Cigna Worldwide Insurance Co</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1037</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Cigna v. Senesie </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Attempt to gain control over Cigna by a Liberian reciever.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T11:02:34-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>03-cv-11661</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>RIAA copyright trial</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">256</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Capital Records, Inc. et al v. Alaujan </official-case-name>
    <permalink>capital-records-inc-et-al-v-alaujan</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">986</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Capital Records, Inc. et al v. Alaujan </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>RIAA copyright trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4180</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">257</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>GPFT Holdco. v. UBS Securities</official-case-name>
    <permalink>gpft-holdco-v-ubs-securities</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1038</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>GPFT Holdco. v. UBS Securities</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary>5-day trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3606</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">258</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IMO Stanley Kubrick 1981 Trust</official-case-name>
    <permalink>imo-stanley-kubrick-1981-trust</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1039</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IMO Stanley Kubrick 1981 Trust</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3933-VCN</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Diamond II Holdings Inc</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Hearing on cross-motions to compel in suit challenging merger agreement financed by Bain Capital.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">259</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>3 Com Corp v. Diamond II Holdings Inc</official-case-name>
    <permalink>3-com-v-diamond-ii</permalink>
    <plaintiff>3 Com Corp</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Mergers and Acquisitions</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1065</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>3 Com v. Diamond II </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Hearing date set</status>
    <summary>Dispute over merger agreement financed by Bain Capital.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-06-23T14:08:26-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:06-cv-11555</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">260</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Kent v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp. et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>kent-v-robert-bosch-tool-corp-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1067</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Kent v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp. et al</short-case-name>
    <source>Other</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC312852</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Dow Chemical Company, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit And Steamship Company, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Occidental Chemical Company, Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Dole Food Company Inc., AMVAC Chemical Corporation</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>25 plaintiffs incurred personal injuries, including reproductive injuries. The plaintiffs claim exposure from working on banana plantations (in Nicaragua) from dermal contact with 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (&quot;DBCP&quot;), inhalation of vapors, and from drinking water allegedly contaminated with DBCP.</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">261</id>
    <industry>Chemical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Duplicate</official-case-name>
    <permalink>tellez-v-dole</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Gamez Julio Cesar Aguilar, Jose Antonio Arauz, Carlos Miguel Blanco, Gonzalez Julio Cesar Calero, Paulino Adrian Campos Mejia, Benancio Rocha Castro, Lopez Feliciano Cruz, Marcos Doroteo Delgado Jaenz, Carlos Enrique Diaz Artiga, Lizandro Espinoza, Isidoro Rigoberto Estrada Velasquez, Edilberto Gonzales Flores, Zavala Concepcion Dejesus Guatemala, Anastacio Rojas Laguna, Gutierrez Jose Uriel Mendoza, Francisco Lopez Morales, Manuel Ignacio Pena, Jose Adolfo Tellez</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">560</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">true</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Tellez v. Dole </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>Toxic tort liability case involving exposure to DBCPs in pesticide among banana plantation workers.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC298933</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">262</id>
    <industry>Automotive</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ana Gloria Bonilla et al v. Chrysler Motors Corporation et al  </official-case-name>
    <permalink>ana-gloria-bonilla-et-al-vs-chrysler-motors-corporation-et</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">899</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>ANA GLORIA BONILLA ET AL VS CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION ET  </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>motion for summary judgment</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CGC-07-467895 </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">263</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>LORI KOMEJAN VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>lori-komejan-vs-city-and-county-of-san-francisco-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Accident Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">543</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>LORI KOMEJAN VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4144</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">264</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>The Reserves Development Corp. vs. Wilmington Trust Co. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>the-reserves-development-corp-vs-wilmington-trust-co</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1033</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>The Reserves Development Corp. vs. Wilmington Trust Co. </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3178</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">265</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State-Boston Retirement System v. Brown</official-case-name>
    <permalink>state-boston-retirement-system-v-brown</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1035</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>State-Boston Retirement System v. Brown</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>hearing re: attorney's fees</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2991</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">266</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Postorivo, Eugene v. A G Paintball Holdings Inc </official-case-name>
    <permalink>postorivo-eugene-v-a-g-paintball-holdings-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1036</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>POSTORIVO, EUGENE v. A G PAINTBALL HOLDINGS INC</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>CL-42736</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The Town Council decided in 2005 to impose a 100 percent surcharge on the water and sewer usage rates paid by out-of-town customers, saying the higher fees were justified because the users did not pay town taxes to help fund the utility system.  A year later, a group of out-of-town customers sued Leesburg over the rate structure.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">267</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Shiflett v. Leesburg Town Council</official-case-name>
    <permalink>shiflett-v-leesburg-town-council</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Constitutional Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1048</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Shiflett v. Leesburg</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>A lengthy dispute over the water and sewer rates that Leesburg charges to out-of-town customers.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T11:02:36-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>05CC00083</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">268</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>GUARANTEE ROYALTIES VS GREKA ENERGY CORPORATION </official-case-name>
    <permalink>guarantee-royalties-vs-greka-energy-corporation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Toxic Tort</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1051</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>GUARANTEE ROYALTIES VS GREKA ENERGY CORPORATION </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>toxic tort jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3940-VCN</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Class action brought by shareholders of Nine Systems Corp (formerly Streaming Media Corp.) - a private corporation. Plaintiffs allege that company directors (defendants) transferred the bulk of their stock value to themselves without proper authorization from or compensation to shareholders. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">269</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Sheldon Dubroff v. Wren Holdings, LLC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>sheldon-dubroff-v-wren-holdings-llc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1063</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>SHELDON DUBROFF V. WREN HOLDINGS, LLC</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Class action brought by shareholders of Nine Systems Corp. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:00-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>GIN057738</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">270</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>The Shareholders Of Tourmaline Network Inc v. Intellisync Corporation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>tourmaline-v-nokia</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">613</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Tourmaline v. Nokia</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-15623</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiff brought suit for wrongful and retaliatory termination, after he was terminated for bringing charges against defendant, his employer, under Equal Employment Opportunity regulations.</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">271</id>
    <industry>Shipping</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Hargrow v. Federal Express Corp.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>hargrow-v-federal-express-corp</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1053</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Hargrow v. Federal Express Corp.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-07T17:01:45-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-16187</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>This oral argument concerns the dispute between Plaintiff, U-Haul and Defendant, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (LMC). U-Haul intended to be covered by a comprehensive insurance scheme that would involve four different insurance policies, one of which was with LMC.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The first three policies were with insurance company Western Republic. The policy with LMC would attached once a $7,000,000 limit was reached with Western Republic. The parties disagree about whether the payment of indemnity and loss adjustment expenses or the payment of indemnity alone (1) exhausts the $7,000,000 total limit of the Republic Western policies and (2) may trigger the coverage of the LMC policy. &lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">272</id>
    <industry>Insurance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>U-Haul Int'l. v. Lumbermens Mutual</official-case-name>
    <permalink>u-haul-intl-v-lumbermens-mutu</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1059</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>U-Haul Int'l. v. Lumbermens Mutu</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Oral Argument</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T12:02:45-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>401, 2008 </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Defendants, Lynodell Chemical's directors filed for summary judgment, alleging they acted in good faith when they accepted a preemptive merger offer of $48 per share from Basell AF, a Dutch chemical business. Plaintiff, Walter E. Ryan Jr. is the representative of the stockholder class action.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">273</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Lyondell Chemical v. Ryan</official-case-name>
    <permalink>lyondell-chemical-v-ryan</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1055</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Lyondell Chemical v. Ryan</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Oral Argument: Interlocutory Appeal</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T16:03:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2319</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">274</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Sloan vs. Segal</official-case-name>
    <permalink>sloan-vs-segal</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1032</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Sloan vs. Segal</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>4-day trust/estate trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:37-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>Court Services</department>
    <description>Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) brought suit against Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC) alleging SMIC stole trade secrets and technology by luring away key employees.&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">275</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>TSMC v. SMIC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>tsmc-v-smic</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Intellectual Property</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1066</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>TSMC v. SMIC</short-case-name>
    <source>Party/Firm Involved in Case</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-08-17T12:06:18-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>5:04-cv-01026</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>Court Services</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">276</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Schmidt et al v. Levi Strauss &amp; Co. et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>schmidt-et-al-v-levi-strauss-co</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">59</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Schmidt et al v. Levi Strauss &amp; Co</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>JCCP4292</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">277</id>
    <industry>Automotive</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>WINSTON TIRE CASES</official-case-name>
    <permalink>winston-tire-cases</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">189</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>WINSTON TIRE CASES</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>hearing on motion to compel and for sanctions</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>13-1999-CA-009450-0000-01</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">278</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Hall-Edwards, Joan v. Ford Motor Co (The)</official-case-name>
    <permalink>the-ford-motor-company-etc-vs-joan-hall-edwards-etc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">324</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ETC., vs.  JOAN HALL-EDWARDS, ETC., ET AL.,</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1091-VCL</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>CIBC ESC Fund Management</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Hearing on defendant's motion to compel expert testimony in derivative class action against Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">279</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Forsythe v. CIBC ESC Fund Management</official-case-name>
    <permalink>forsythe-v-cibc</permalink>
    <plaintiff>FORSYTHE, JAMES; TESCHE, ALAN; </plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">912</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Forsythe v. CIBC</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Hearing date set</status>
    <summary>motion hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-19T12:03:11-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>RG06272122</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Welder Butch Thomas allegedly suffered irreversible neurological damage (Parkinson's Disease or Parkinsonism) from Manganese poisoning, which would ultimately result in his death, as a result of toxic Manganese gas emitted by welding rods during the 1970's and 1980's.  Thomas used welding rods provided by Lincoln Electric, Hobart, and ESAB.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;According to the plaintiff, Lincoln Electric admitted that they had known about the dangers of Manganese gas since the 1940's, but attempted to minimize the risk, rather than effectively warn.  A warning label added in 1967 did not include the word &quot;Manganese&quot; and was not placed where the worker was likely to see it.  The plaintiff asserted that this was a conscious, intentional decision to deny the worker his right to know.  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Documents showed that in 1981 the America Welding Society knew that Manganese fumes were dangerous to welders even at low levels, and that safety warnings requiring &quot;adequate&quot; ventilation were ambiguous and did not reach the welder.  Labels mentioning the word &quot;Manganese&quot; did not appear until the late 1990's or after 2000.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The defense argued that the industry provided ample safety warnings and ensured that adequate information was disseminated in the community at all times.  &quot;No one hid one bit of information from anybody.&quot;  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;In addition, according to the defendant, Thomas was never exposed to Manganese at toxic levels, and a different warning label would not have convinced Thomas not to weld because Thomas chose not to read the labels that were there.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The jury found that the defendants failed to adequately warn of the dangers, but that the lack of an adequate warning was not a substantial cause of harm to the plaintiff.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt; </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">280</id>
    <industry>Construction</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Thomas v. The Lincoln Electric Company</official-case-name>
    <permalink>thomas-v-lincoln-electric</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Toxic Torts</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">991</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Thomas v. Lincoln Electric </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Welding rod products liability toxic tort</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-08T09:01:15-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-5618</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>International Business Machines Corporation (IMB) brought this action to prevent Mark D. Papermaster, a high-ranking IMB executive, from breaching his confidentiality and non competition agreements by accepting a position at Apple, Inc.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">281</id>
    <industry>Technology</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>International Business Machines Corporation v. Papermaster </official-case-name>
    <permalink>international-business-machines-corporation-v-papermaster</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Labor and Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1024</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IMB v. Papermaster </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T12:02:45-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>CISCV159506</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">282</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Pajaro Sunny Mesa Comm. Serv v. Pajaro Valley Water</official-case-name>
    <permalink>pajaro-sunny-mesa-comm-serv-vs-pajaro-valley-water</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1026</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>PAJARO SUNNY MESA COMM. SERV VS PAJARO VALLEY WATER</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>CL07005167-00  </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">283</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>FUSSELL, PRESTON W. v. INTERNATIONAL JET CHARTER, INC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>fussell-preston-w-v-international-jet-charter-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Accident Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1054</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>FUSSELL, PRESTON W. v. INTERNATIONAL JET CHARTER, INC</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>3-day plane crash liability trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>05-cv-480</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">284</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Securities and Exchange Commission v Nacchio et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>securities-and-exchange-commission-v-nacchio-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">250</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>717</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>AT&amp;T</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiffs are former senior executives of MediaOne, acquired by AT&amp;T. They're claiming breach of fiduciary duty after their Options were canceled. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">285</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Lillis v. AT&amp;T</official-case-name>
    <permalink>lillis-v-att</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Lillis</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1008</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Lillis v. AT&amp;T</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Former senior executives of MediaOne, acquired by AT&amp;T, are claiming breach of fiduciary duty after their Options were canceled. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T12:02:45-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3718</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Cherrydale Fundraising LLC</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>These are post-trial motions, of a trial alleging that employees of a non-profit fundraising firm violated their employment agreements by taking jobs at a competing agency.&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">286</id>
    <industry>Not for Profit - Charitable</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Great American Opportunities Inc v. Cherrydale Fundraising LLC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>great-american-v-cherrydale</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Great American Opportunities Inc</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1030</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Great American v. Cherrydale</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Hearing date set</status>
    <summary>Trial alleging employees of a non-profit fundraising firm violated their employment agreements by taking jobs at a competing agency. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-07T07:04:41-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>SUCV2003-06083</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Jury trial in Boston business litigation related to federal civil RICO claim...complex case history. Plaintiff attempting to reclaim promissary notes associated with a large grantor trust. Spent time in MA federal court...</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">287</id>
    <industry>RICO</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Zammito Jr, et al. vs. Healey Jr, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>zammito-jr-et-al-vs-healey-jr-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1016</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Zammito Jr, et al. vs. Healey Jr, et al.</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>99-19829</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">288</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Lottimer vs. de la Pena</official-case-name>
    <permalink>lottimer-vs-de-la-pena</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Medical Malpractice</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1044</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Lottimer vs. de la Pena</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>4-week med mal trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2007AP203</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The central dispute in this case raises the question whether officers or directors who are the sole owners of a corporation may manage that corporation for their own benefit at the expense of the corporation and its creditors. Existing case law suggests conflicting answers to this question, and its ultimate resolution presents a significant policy issue that is likely to have statewide impact on corporations, the banks who lend to them, and others who contract with them.</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">289</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Michael S. Polsky v. Daniel E. Virnich</official-case-name>
    <permalink>polsky-v-virnich</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1043</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Polsky v. Virnich</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Issue: Whether owners can make business decisions for their personal benefit at the expense of creditors, workers and the corporations themselves or whether they have obligations to those interests.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T12:02:47-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3857</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Shareholder Settlement Conference</description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">290</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>InBev NV/SA v. Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>inbev-v-anheuser-busch</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Mergers &amp; Acquisitions</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">783</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>InBev v. Anheuser-Busch</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Shareholder Settlement Conference</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:01-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2:07-cv-00920</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">291</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Browne et al v. Avvo Inc et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>browne-et-al-v-avvo-inc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">270</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>114552-2008</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Apollo Management LP's Hexion Specialty Chemicals filed suit against Credit Suisse Group and Deutsche Bank AG, trying to force the banks to fund the $6.5 billion purchase of chemicals maker Huntsman Corp.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">292</id>
    <industry>Chemical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Hexion Specialty Chemicals Corp. v. Credit Suisse</official-case-name>
    <permalink>hexion-v-credit-suisse</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Mergers and Acquisitions</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">953</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Hexion v. Credit Suisse</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Hexion sued banks to fund purchase of Huntsman Corp.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T13:02:32-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08CVS9784</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">293</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>BHB Enterprises, Inc. v. Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>bhb-enterprises-inc-v-waste-management-of-carolinas-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1019</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>BHB Enterprises, Inc. v. Waste Management of Carolinas, Inc.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08AC-CC00370</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">294</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State Of Mo Ex Rel v. Matthew R Blunt et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>state-of-mo-ex-rel-vs-matthew-r-blunt-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1020</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>STATE OF MO EX REL vs. MATTHEW R BLUNT ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>07-A-549646-C</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Lucky Blue 107 LLC</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Pretrial: PLTF'S MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE SEVERANCE DAMAGE OPINION /5&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Trial on 1/5/09</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">295</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Nevada Power Co v Lucky Blue 107 LLC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>nevada-power</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Nevada Power Co</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1042</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Nevada Power </short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CR07000056-00, CR07000057-00</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">296</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State of VA v. Michael Vick</official-case-name>
    <permalink>state-of-va-v-michael-vick</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Criminal</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">574</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>State of VA v. Michael Vick</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>7:07-cv-11254</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">297</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Sorano v. Taggart et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>sorano-v-taggart-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">982</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Sorano v. Taggart et al</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>08000390GCS </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">298</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Aaron Seward vs. The Knoll-Century Hill Homeowner&#8217;s Association, Inc</official-case-name>
    <permalink>aaron-seward-vs-the-knoll-century-hill-homeowners-association-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1027</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Aaron Seward vs. The Knoll-Century Hill Homeowner&#8217;s Association, Inc</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:07-cv-11285</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Morgan Stanley &amp; Co, Inc.</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The action is brought on behalf of the Plans themselves, as well as a class of participants and/or beneficiaries in the plans from December 1, 2005 to present, for relief to the Plans pursuant to Sections 409 and 502(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. &#167;&#167; 1109 and 1132(a). The action primarily alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by (1) investing and permitting the investment of Morgan Stanley stock in the Plans when it was no longer prudent to do so because, inter alia, Morgan Stanley had become heavily exposed to extraordinary risks relating to its subprime mortgage securitizations business; and (2) by failing to disclose negative material information concerning investment in Morgan Stanley stock.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">299</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>egan-v-morgan-stanley</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Carolyn Egan</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">666</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Egan v. Morgan Stanley</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Morgan Stanley ERISA litigation</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>083914CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Tecumseh Products Company</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Herrick Foundation filed a lawsuit in Lenawee County (Mich.) Court to seek injunctive relief from the decision by Tecumseh Products Company to declare a 3-for-1 stock split effective on December 31, 2008. The stock split, which two board members voted against, is the Board's third unlawful effort to interfere with voting rights, according to Herrick Foundation spokesman Jeff Caponigro. </description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">300</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Herrick Foundation v. Tecumseh Products Company</official-case-name>
    <permalink>herrick-v-tecumseh-products</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Herrick Foundation</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1015</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Herrick v. Tecumseh Products</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>4-21-09 trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T13:02:32-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>0600845/2007</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">301</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>ART FINANCE PARTNERS v. CHRISTIE'S</official-case-name>
    <permalink>art-finance-partners-v-christies</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1017</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>ART FINANCE PARTNERS v. CHRISTIE'S</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>partial summary judgment hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC313431</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>6/25 status conference</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">302</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>EDWARD TARAS VS JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL INC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>edward-taras-vs-jiffy-lube-international-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">426</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>EDWARD TARAS VS JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL INC</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2808-VCS</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant> Loral Space &amp; Communications, Inc, MHR Advisors LLC, MHR Capital Partners</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The Shareholder Derivative Litigation arose out of the Company's sale of $300 million of preferred stock to funds affiliated with MHR Fund Management LLC (&quot;MHR&quot;) pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement dated October 17, 2006, as amended and restated on February 27, 2007 (the &quot;Securities Purchase Agreement&quot;). The plaintiffs, certain stockholders of Loral, alleged, among other things, that the sale was not fair to the Company and resulted from breach of fiduciary duties by Loral's directors. </description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">303</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In re Loral Space &amp; Communications, Inc. Consolidated Litigation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-loral</permalink>
    <plaintiff>BlackRock, Citi/Golden Tree LTD, Cypress Management LLP, Deutsche Bank, Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, KS Capital Parners,  Mainstay High Yield, Murray Capital Management, Resolution, Stansfield Offshore, Wilfrid Aubrey LLC</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">537</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re Loral</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>Bench Trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T13:02:32-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC199546</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">304</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO</official-case-name>
    <permalink>lockheed-v-continental</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Insurance Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">813</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Lockheed v. Continental</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-cv-08459</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>show cause hearing w/ Berman</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">305</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>International Economic and Trading Corporation et al v. Transfield ER Cape Limited</official-case-name>
    <permalink>international-economic-and-trading-corporation-et-al-v-transfield-er-cape-limited</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">993</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>International Economic and Trading Corporation et al v. Transfield ER Cape Limited</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>show cause hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>080606037</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>A Texas jury will hear a multibillion dollar claim by Huntsman Corp. that two of the world's largest banks, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank, scuttled its proposed mergers with Hexion Chemical and Basell Holdings, NV. Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank were supposed to finance the deals, but backed away when the credit markets deteriorated last fall. Among the claims Huntsman is pursuing are tortuous interference and common law fraud.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Hexion Chemical is owned by Leon Black's Apollo Management. In one of the most noteworthy rulings last year, Delaware Chancery Court vice-chancellor Stephen Lamb found that Hexion breached its merger agreement with Huntsman. Hexion eventually settled that litigation for $1 billion, including a $425 million cash payment to Huntsman. Apollo and Hexion are cooperating with Huntsman in this litigation. (For video of the Delaware litigation, please click &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.courtroomview.com/proceedings/huntsman-v-credit-suisse-hearing-2009-06-11&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.) &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Presiding over the trial is Texas Ninth District state court Judge Fred Edwards, a Republican who has been on the bench since 1993. The trial will be held Conroe, Tex., which is about 14 miles from Huntsman's U.S. headquarters. Lead counsel for Huntsman is Jean Frizzell, Robin Gibbs and Kathy Patrick of Gibbs &amp; Bruns. Lead counsel for the banks is Richard Clary of Cravath, Swaine &amp; Moore and G. Irvin Terrell of Baker Botts. The trial is expected to last approximately four weeks.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;View a &lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=f55c51fdaac54d958453452793b84f01&quot;&gt;clip from September's Hexion v. Huntsman Trial&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;View a &lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=b3061e1314874a379d80ad562a812219&quot;&gt;clip from October's Hexion v. Huntsman Hearing&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;View a &lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=72bb7574cadd43f7ba9121dd0f7805ba&quot;&gt;clip from November's Huntsman v. Credit Suisse Hearing&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;View a &lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=0ba47a1fbc734aa5ad647020d087aaa4&quot;&gt;clip from May's Huntsman v. Credit Suisse Hearing&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">306</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Huntsman Corp. v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>huntsman-v-credit-suisse</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Huntsman Corp.</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Mergers and Acquisitions</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">838</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Huntsman v. Credit Suisse</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>Huntsman Corporation sued Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank in Texas state court after the banks failed to fund Huntsman's $6 billion dollar merger deal with Hexion Specialty Chemicals.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-06-20T13:02:54-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>8SY08136</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Defendant accused of stalking LA Laker Luke Walton. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Torrence Superior Court, CA. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">307</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>People v. Beshear</official-case-name>
    <permalink>people-v-beshear</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Criminal</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">963</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>People v. Beshear</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>7:08-cv-04720 </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>The Town of Goshen</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Defendant, the Town of Goshen, brought a motion to dismiss a suit by developer, Plaintiff, Scotchtown Holdings LLC (Scotchtown) whose plans were blocked by the presence of groundwater contamination, which occurred due to the town's use of a sodium chloride road treatment.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">308</id>
    <industry>Chemical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Scotchtown Holdings LLC v. The Town of Goshen et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>scotchtown-v-goshen</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Scotchtown Holdings LLC</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Environmental Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">981</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Scotchtown v. Goshen</short-case-name>
    <source>Other</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Environmental tort- sodium chloride in road treatments.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T13:02:33-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-cv-04720</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>federal oral arguments with new targeted judge in SDNY...application not submitted yet</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">309</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>992</official-case-name>
    <permalink>scotchtown-holdings-llc-v-the-town-of-goshen-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">992</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name> Scotchtown Holdings LLC v. The Town of Goshen et al </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>federal oral arguments</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:38-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">310</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name></official-case-name>
    <permalink>45ccee2d8a9168979a961b12ef9902cfd55d7840</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1022</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>,</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC304559</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">311</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>MARLON CAMPBELL VS NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>marlon-campbell-vs-nextel-communications-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Antitrust</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">814</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>MARLON CAMPBELL VS NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:07-cv-10959</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">312</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Industrial Window Corp. v. Federal Insurance Company</official-case-name>
    <permalink>industrial-window-corp-v-federal-insurance-company</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">871</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Industrial Window Corp. v. Federal Insurance Company</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>20106-VCS</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Settlement hearing. </description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">313</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana v AIG</official-case-name>
    <permalink>trsla-v-aig</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">824</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>TRSLA v. AIG </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>Settlement hearing. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Delaware Supreme Court oral arguments</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">314</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Delaware Supreme Court Oral Arguments- 12/17/08</official-case-name>
    <permalink>delaware-supreme-court-oral-arguments</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Patent</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1023</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Delaware Supreme Court oral arguments</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Delaware Supreme Court oral arguments</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2369-VCN</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc, William J. Brodsky, John E. Smollen, Robert J. Birnbaum, James R. Boris, Mark F. Duffy, Jonathan G. Flatow, Janet P. Froetscher, Bradley G. Griffith, Stuart K. Kipnes, Duane R. Kullberg, James P. Macgilvray, R. Eden Martin, Roderick Palmore, Thomas H. Patrick, Jr., Thomas A. Petrone, Susan M. Phillips, William R. Power, Samuel K. Skinner, Carole E. Stone, Howard L. Stone, Eugene S. Sunshine</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Shareholder litigation resulting from the merger of CBOT and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Holdings, Inc. and  the demutualization of CBOE.</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">315</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>CBOT Holdings Inc et al v. Chicago Board Options Exchange Inc</official-case-name>
    <permalink>cbot-v-cboe</permalink>
    <plaintiff>The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., Michael Floodstrand And Thomas J. Ward</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">371</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>CBOT v. CBOE</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Shareholder litigation resulting from the merger of CBOT and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Holdings, Inc. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T13:02:33-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">316</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>The McGraw-Hill Companies et al. v. Google Inc., 05-cv-08881</official-case-name>
    <permalink>the-mcgraw-hill-companies-et-al-v-google-inc-05-cv-08881</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">281</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:02-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">317</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>The Authors Guild et al. v. Google Inc., No. 05 CIV 8136 (JES)</official-case-name>
    <permalink>the-authors-guild-et-al-v-google-inc-no-05-civ-8136-jes</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">282</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-A-10535-10</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>City of Duluth</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The lawsuit, the first of two Bandy filed against the city last fall, concerns the legality of a six-month moratorium on large-scale buildings that Duluth put in place last summer. When the city council approved its sprawling large-scale building ordinance in December, it lifted the moratorium in five months.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Wal-mart's been silent on its plans since January, when it won most of its requests to vary from city codes in building its 176,000-square-foot store. But the city denied the retailer's contention that the store, which sits on a corner lot, only has one fa&#239;&#191;&#189;ade.</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">318</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Jack Bandy vs. the city of Duluth</official-case-name>
    <permalink>bandy-vs-city-of-duluth</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Jack Bandy</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">661</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Bandy vs. City of Duluth</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>Wal-Mart Supercenter building doesn't meet local regulations</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CV2008-012783</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>med-mal motion to dismiss with complex judge in maricopa county, had discussed with sumit trying an event there.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">319</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Preston v. Kindred Hospital Systems, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>preston-v-kindred-hospital-systems</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Medical Malpractice</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">988</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Preston v. Kindred Hospital Systems</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>med-mal motion to dismiss</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4123-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Injunction hearing in shareholder class action complaint seeking to block acquisition of National City Corp. by PNC bank. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">320</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Anderson v. National City Corp.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>anderson-v-national-city-corp</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1009</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Anderson v. National City Corp.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Class action complaint trying to block acquisition of National City Corp.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC315641</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>2-week complex property rights jury trial. Massive party list.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;LA real estate baron/developer sued by country club that caters to A-list celebrities for property rights violation. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">321</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>BEL-AIR COUNTRY CLUB VS DAVID MURDOCK JR</official-case-name>
    <permalink>bel-air-country-club-vs-david-murdock-jr</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1011</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>BEL-AIR COUNTRY CLUB VS DAVID MURDOCK JR</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>2-week complex property rights jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4200</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Billionaire investor Carl Icahn sued Leon Black&#8216;s Realogy Corp. over claims the company&#8217;s planned $1.1 billion debt exchange is a fraudulent transfer of money that will only delay its inevitable failure</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">322</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>The Bank of New York Mellon et al v. Realogy</official-case-name>
    <permalink>the-bank-of-new-york-mellon-and-high-river-limited-partnership-v-realogy</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1013</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>The Bank of New York Mellon and High River Limited Partnership v. Realogy</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>**Update** PER JUDGES ORDER, WE WILL NOT BE RECORDING THIS&gt;Claims that the company&#8217;s planned $1.1 billion debt exchange is a fraudulent transfer of money.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>C-99-02</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>This is a hearing on trial discovery orders for the suit brought by plaintiff Williams Robertson, the Robertson Foundation trustee, against Princeton University for misallocation of endowment funds.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The Foundation was started by plaintiff's parents in 1961 with a $35 million grant, with the purpose to support programs at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs for students pursuing government careers, particularly in international relations.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Plaintiff alleges that Princeton violated the gift's terms by surreptitiously using hundreds of millions of dollars of Robertson Foundation funds for a variety of matters, such as building construction and faculty and graduate student support in diverse academic disciplines.  </description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">323</id>
    <industry>Education</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>William Robertson, et al vs. Princeton University, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>william-robertson-et-al-vs-princeton-university-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Education Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">562</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Robertson vs. Princeton </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>hearing on trial discovery orders</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T13:02:33-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC356095</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">324</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IN RE: CROWN PRINCESS LISTING INCIDENT CASES</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-crown-princess-listing-incident-cases</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Accident Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">816</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IN RE: CROWN PRINCESS LISTING INCIDENT CASES</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3351-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Various hedge funds seek appraisal of Metromedia International Group.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">325</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: Appraisal of Metromedia</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-appraisal-of-metromedia</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1007</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Appraisal of Metromedia</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Various hedge funds seek appraisal of Metromedia International Group.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-23T13:03:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC320596</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>case status conference on 6/16</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">326</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ins. Commr. of the State of CA vs Concentra Managed Care Sservice</official-case-name>
    <permalink>ins-commr-of-the-state-of-ca-vs-concentra-managed-care-sservice</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">312</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Ins. Commr. of the State of CA vs Concentra Managed Care Sservice</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CGC-08-475276</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">327</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>CRAIGSLIST, INC. VS. EBAY INC. et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>craigslist-inc-vs-ebay-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">694</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>CRAIGSLIST, INC. VS. EBAY INC</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08-917-CZ</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>in the Michigan Circuit Court for the 30th Judicial Circuit (Ingham County)</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">328</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Attorney General Mike Cox v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan</official-case-name>
    <permalink>attorney-general-mike-cox-v-blue-cross-blue-shield-of-michigan</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">772</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Attorney General Mike Cox v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>0816-CV-31761</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Patrick Tuohey, a Kansas City, Mo., resident and member of the Committee for Sensible Transit, has filed a lawsuit against City Hall regarding Question 1, the controversial tax proposal to start a light-rail line in Kansas City, Mo.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;http://dosmundos.com/welcome/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=2474&amp;Itemid=69</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">329</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Tuohey v. City of Kansas City</official-case-name>
    <permalink>tuohey-v-city-of-kansas-city</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Taxation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1001</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Tuohey v. City of Kansas City</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>trial over MO mayor's light rail fundraising</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T13:02:33-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-1499</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Appeal from a trial court's ruling in a lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples who sought to marry in Iowa.  The lawsuit argued that under the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Iowa Constitution it same-sex couples could not be precluded from marrying, and thus gay and lesbian couples in Iowa were entitled to the rights and benefits of marriage &#8212; including the word &quot;marriage&quot; itself.  The trial court struck down the state's prohibition on the recognition of same-sex marriages on the ground that the right to marry was a &quot;fundamental right.&quot;  </description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">330</id>
    <industry>Government</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Varnum v. Brien</official-case-name>
    <permalink>varnum-v-brien</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">996</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Varnum v. Brien</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Iowa Constitution grants same-sex couples the right to marry</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T15:02:47-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>C-15808</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The restraining order was issued after the Division of Consumer Affairs and Attorney General Anne Milgram filed a lawsuit that claimed the companies required payment in advance during consultations and then failed to provide consumers with credit counseling, repair or bankruptcy services.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">331</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Milgram v. United Credit Adjusters, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>milgram-v-united-credit-adjusters-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">999</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Milgram v. United Credit Adjusters, et al. </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>preliminary injunction hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3608</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Complaint filed under seal, multiple redacted documents. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">332</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>BASF v. POSM</official-case-name>
    <permalink>basf-v-posm</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1006</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>BASF v. POSM</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>hearing on motion to dismiss</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:01-cv-12257</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">333</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Citizens for Consume, et al v. Abbott Laboratories, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>citizens-for-consume-et-al-v-abbott-laboratories-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">260</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2:05-cv-06667</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">334</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Dickerson et al v. Gretna City et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>dickerson-et-al-v-gretna-city-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">415</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>41 2007 CF 000708 A </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Ramsey -- whose husband, Daniel Ramsey, was killed in February 2007 -- is the state's key witness in the murder cases against the accused shooter, Anthony C. Lewis Jr., and the alleged getaway driver, Michael L. Walker.&lt;BR/&gt;In December, authorities arrested Anthony Lewis, his mother Twanda Lewis and Marquis McArthur, 20, on charges of conspiracy to murder Roberta Ramsey.&lt;BR/&gt;An inmate tipped off authorities to the plan after learning about it from Anthony Lewis at Manatee County jail, court records state. Much of the case is rooted in a series of recorded phone calls from the jail.&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">335</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>People v. Lewis</official-case-name>
    <permalink>people-v-lewis</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Criminal</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">976</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>People v. Lewis</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>florida criminal trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:08-cv-02891</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">336</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: Estate of Vincent Ferrante, Jr</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-estate-of-vincent-ferrante-jr</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">984</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Estate of Vincent Ferrante, Jr</short-case-name>
    <source>Other</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3794</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiff (common stock shareholder) seeks appointment of custodian for defunct/voided publicly traded company. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Defendants have not responded to suit. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">337</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>COPE vs. GLOBALNET SYSTEMS LTD, ET AL.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>cope-vs-globalnet-systems-ltd-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1004</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>COPE vs. GLOBALNET SYSTEMS LTD, ET AL.</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>hearing on motion for default judgment</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>4001-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>This suit was brought by the University of Delaware seeking copyright infringement against unnamed &quot;lot vendors&quot; who were selling athletic merchandise. This hearing seeks to allow plaintiffs to seize the re-sold material originally produced by the University. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">338</id>
    <industry>Fashion</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>University of Delaware v. John Doe</official-case-name>
    <permalink>university-of-delaware-v-john-doe</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Intellectual Property</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">1005</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>U. Delaware v. John Doe</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>seizure hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T15:02:47-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>1:07-cv-02103</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">339</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC. ET AL V YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and GOOGLE INC</official-case-name>
    <permalink>viacom-international-inc-et-al-v-youtube-inc-youtube-llc-and-google-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">247</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1-08-CV-104693</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:39-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">340</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Litigation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-yahoo-inc-shareholder-litigation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">538</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Litigation</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1-08-CV-104693</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">341</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Litigation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-yahoo-inc-shareholder-litigation-2</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">713</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Litigation</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>yahoo shareholder litigation</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>RG07337891</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Employment suit by former employee of securities services company. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">342</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Merrick vs. The Wackenhut Corporation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>merrick-vs-the-wackenhut-corporation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">921</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Merrick vs. The Wackenhut Corporation</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary>motion for summary judgment</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:03-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC323107</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Prilosec class action. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">343</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>James Weiss v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals</official-case-name>
    <permalink>weiss-v-astrazeneca</permalink>
    <plaintiff>James Weiss</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Products Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">998</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Weiss v. Astrazeneca </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Prilosec class action. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T15:02:47-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC349912</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">344</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>KEYANA FISK VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER</official-case-name>
    <permalink>keyana-fisk-vs-cedars-sinai-medical-center</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">214</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>KEYANA FISK VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>S051805</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">345</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Williams v. Philip Morris Inc. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>williams-v-philip-morris-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">320</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Williams v. Philip Morris Inc. </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC332936</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>A lithographic ink manufacturer is arguing in a May 29 reply brief that summary judgment should be granted in a benzene exposure case because the plaintiff's claims are preempted by the Federal Benzene Standard.</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">346</id>
    <industry>Chemical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Thomas Wayne Reese v. Gans Ink and Supply Company</official-case-name>
    <permalink>reese-v-gans</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Toxic Tort</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">905</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Reese v. Gans </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary>Benzene Exposure Case</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2008cv10857</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>http://ip.law360.com/Secure/ViewArticle.aspx?id=57120</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">347</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Cognex Corporation et al v. MvTec Software GmbH et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>cognex-corporation-et-al-v-mvtec-software-gmbh-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Patent</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">702</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Cognex Corporation et al v. MvTec Software GmbH et al</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>Fuji patent lawsuit</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC329475</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>contract fraud jury trial</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">348</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Merit Engineering Inc v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp Et Al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>merit-engineering-inc-vs-northrop-grumman-systems-corp-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">900</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>MERIT ENGINEERING INC VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORP ET AL </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary>contract fraud jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Alleged hepatitis contamination at endoscopy clinic. Not a class action, but multiple cases. Multiple motions to dismiss and case mgmt conferences on calendar for 12/2. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">349</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: Endoscopy Cases</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-endoscopy-cases</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">987</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Endoscopy Cases</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>04-17806-CA-06</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>This is a property development dispute jury trial.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">350</id>
    <industry>Real Estate</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Franco Investments, LLC vs. Pine Run Developers, LLC, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>franco-investments-llc-vs-pine-run-developers-llc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Real Property</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">994</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Franco vs. Pine Run</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Property development dispute jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T16:03:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">351</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Murray et al v. General Electric Company et al 07-cv-00612</official-case-name>
    <permalink>murray-et-al-v-general-electric-company-et-al-07-cv-00612</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">213</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>5:06-cv-00316</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">352</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IN RE: Air Crash at Lexington, Kentucky, August 27, 2006 </official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-air-crash-at-lexington-kentucky-august-27-2006</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>wrongful death</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">556</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Cameras Prohibited</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>PC025218</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Breach of rental/lease&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Need to obtain copy of complaint for more information. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">353</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Star Iron Works, Inc et al v. Oved &amp; Assoc., et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>star-iron-works-inc-et-al-vs-oved-assoc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">919</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>STAR IRON WORKS, INC, ET AL VS. OVED &amp; ASSOC., ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>Regional</area-type>
    <case-number>2005-CV-02483B</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Lowery, Mary</defendant>
    <department>R&amp;D</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">354</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Field v. Lowery</official-case-name>
    <permalink>field-v-lowery</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Field, Mark</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Accident Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">971</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Field v. Lowery</short-case-name>
    <source>Party/Firm Involved in Case</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">355</id>
    <industry>Employment</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name></official-case-name>
    <permalink>trevor-dennis-v-coleman-company-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">985</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name> . </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>Product liability trial.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-10-29T13:02:17-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>Court Services</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">356</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>US v. Catapano</official-case-name>
    <permalink>us-v-catapano</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">997</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>US v. Catapano</short-case-name>
    <source>Party/Firm Involved in Case</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3746-VCP</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>IPCS</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Sprint Nextel seeks a declaration that its proposed transaction&quot; with Clearwire &quot;will not breach the exclusivity provision&quot; of agreements with IPCS, according to a complaint filed Wednesday in Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington.</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">357</id>
    <industry>Telecommunication</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Sprint Nextel Corp, et al V. IPCS, Inc et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>sprint-v-ipcs</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Sprint Nextel Corp</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Commercial Law</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">744</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Sprint v. IPCS</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary>Litigating $14.5 billion with WiniMax.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-07T07:04:42-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC380698</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>LA Superior&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Countrywide Litigation</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">358</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>DAVID H LUTHER VS COUNTRYWIDE HOMES LOANS SERVICING LP ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>david-h-luther-vs-countrywide-homes-loans-servicing-lp-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">789</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>DAVID H LUTHER VS COUNTRYWIDE HOMES LOANS SERVICING LP ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC391226</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>suit claiming false advertising by dietary supplement/vitamin maker</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">359</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Hulme, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>hulme-et-al-v-iovate-health-sciences-usa-inc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Fraud</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">907</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Hulme, et al. v. Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., et al.</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>suit claiming false advertising by dietary supplement/vitamin maker</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>603052-2008</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>A pension fund, the State-Boston Retirement System, has sued putative buyer Eli Lilly, along with ImClone and its directors, claiming that the biotech&#8217;s board didn&#8217;t live up to its fiduciary duty. And the suit is pursuing class-action status to get other shareholders in on the fight.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">360</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>State-Boston Retirement System, et al. vs. Imclone Systems, et al. </official-case-name>
    <permalink>state-boston-retirement-system-et-al-vs-imclone-systems-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">974</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>State-Boston Retirement System, et al. vs. Imclone Systems, et al. </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>initial case management conference</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>VG07336467 </case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">361</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Didio v. Intex Recreation Corp., a California Corporation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>didio-v-intex</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">550</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Didio v. Intex</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>RG06303359</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Challenging designation of California courier drivers as independent contractors. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Alameda Superior. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">362</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Miller VS Clayton National Courier Systems</official-case-name>
    <permalink>miller-vs-clayton-national-courier-systems</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">922</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Miller VS Clayton National Courier Systems</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>employment related jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08 CVS 22632</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Via the Charlotte Observer: &quot;Former Wachovia shareholders, including prominent Charlotte businessman Cameron Harris, are lining up against a proposed legal settlement related to the bank's sale to Wells Fargo.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;They object to how the settlement would pay them nothing, while giving nearly $2 million to a New York law firm that was purportedly representing their interests. They're also concerned the settlement could bar other suits related to Wachovia.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Joe Millsaps, a Charlotte attorney&lt;BR/&gt;representing three N.C. shareholders, called the proposal &quot;an unconstitutional taking of shareholder rights without due process.&quot; </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">363</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ehrenhaus v. Baker, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>ehrenhaus-v-baker-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Mergers and Acquisitions</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">969</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Ehrenhaus v. Baker, et al.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Hearing date set</status>
    <summary>settlement hearing</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-08-14T11:03:06-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>08CVS6032</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Dispute over unpaid balance (160k) for pharmaceutical supplies. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">364</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>McKesson Corp. v. Central Carolina Surgical Eye Associates, P.A.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>mckesson-corp-v-central-carolina-surg</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">979</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>McKesson Corp. v. Central Carolina Surg</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>hearing on a motion to dismiss</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1075-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Dispute over property trust arrangement. Only included because it's a 2-day trial with Chandler. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">365</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Luckel v. Varva</official-case-name>
    <permalink>luckel-v-varva</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">990</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Luckel v. Varva</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>small 2 day trial with Chandler</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CGC-07-468241</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">366</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>City &amp;County of San Francisco vs State of California Dept of Health Care Services</official-case-name>
    <permalink>city-county-of-san-francisco-vs-state-of-california-dept-of-health-care-services</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">167</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>City &amp;County of San Francisco vs State of California Dept of Health Care Services</short-case-name>
    <source>Hedge Fund</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>06-cv-07685</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department></department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">367</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Johnson &amp; Johnson vs Boston &amp; Abbott Laboratories </official-case-name>
    <permalink>johnson-johnson-vs-boston-abbott-laboratories</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">225</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name></short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>9th circuit oral arguments currently underway in multiple cities this week. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">368</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>9th Circuit Oral Arguments</official-case-name>
    <permalink>9th-circuit-oral-arguments</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">989</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>9th Circuit Oral Arguments</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>for discussion purposes</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3637</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Hearing on motion to dismiss. Millennium claims it lacks the assets to honor an agreement to purchase a smaller cable outlet. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">369</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>James Cable v. Millenium Digital Media</official-case-name>
    <permalink>james-cable-v-millenium-digital-media</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">966</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>James Cable v. Millenium Digital Media</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>hearing on motion to dismiss</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>JCCP4160</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:40-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>This trial is part of the statewide coordinated judicial proceeding involving Firestone tire tread separation and Ford Explorer rollover related litigation currently centralized in Los Angeles. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Plaintiffs are the family members of 11-year-old William Moreno, who died of massive head trauma when the Ford Explorer he and his family were riding in overturned in 2006. They claim the accident was caused by a tire recently installed by American Tire Depot that was subject to recall due to existing tread separation concerns. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;View free video clips from the case:&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=6593fcf5b19c406283a12734a4f72bbb&quot;&gt;Roger Braugh delivers plaintiff's opening statement -- Clip 1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://mslcc.courtroomconnect.net/mslCC/Viewer/?peid=aaba588cb3c54a968ebc92fce9945ccb&quot;&gt;William DelHagen delivers defense's opening statement -- Clip 2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">370</id>
    <industry>Automotive</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ramon Moreno, Sr. v. Ford Motor Company, et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>firestone-tire-cases</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Products Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">471</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Firestone Tire Cases</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Trial Date Set</status>
    <summary>jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-10T16:01:24-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>05-cv-11148</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Motions deadline on 9/1. </description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">371</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al v. First Databank, Inc., et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>new-england-carpenters-health-benefits-fund-et-al-v-first-databank-inc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Rackateering</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">740</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al v. First Databank, Inc., et al</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>This is an appeal of litigation for proposed &quot;safer cigarette&quot; alternative. Plaintiff, Rose, claims that two cigarette companies were negligent in designing their product because the &quot;safer cigarette&quot; should have used lower levels of tar and nicotine. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Rose, who died during the pendency of the appeal, smoked for more than 40 years, consuming more than a pack a day of regular cigarettes. She was diagnosed with with lung cancer in 1995, two years after she finally quit smoking.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;This appeal took place in the NY Court of Appeals in Albany. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">372</id>
    <industry>Tobacco</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Rose et al v. Brown &amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp</official-case-name>
    <permalink>rose-et-al-v-brown-williamson-tobacco-corp</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Products Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">962</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Rose v. Brown &amp; Williamson</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T16:03:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3366</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Summary judgment hearing on suit seeking dissolution of joint venture. (Visiting delegation from Commercial Court of Tanzania will attend hearing, so possible a good one). </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">373</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: Comtech Wireless</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-comtech-wireless</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">964</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Comtech Wireless</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>summary judgment hearing. </summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC361000</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>A judge Thursday denied a motion by Costco to dismiss a lawsuit by a gay employee who alleges he was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and made the subject of a disparaging video.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;http://www.knbc.com/news/17613686/detail.html</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">374</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Juan Isaac Valera v. Costco Wholesale Et Al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>valera-v-costco</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Civil Rights</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">914</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Valera v. Costco</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>civil rights/discrimination suit</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Joseph Peiser, Kathleen Drake, and Greg Doherty</defendant>
    <department>Court Services</department>
    <description>People of the State of New York v. Doherty, et al.</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">375</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>People of the State of NY v. Joseph Peiser, Kathleen Drake, and Greg Doherty</official-case-name>
    <permalink>ny-v-peisner-drake-doherty</permalink>
    <plaintiff>People of the State of NY</plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">955</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>NY State v. Doherty, et al.</short-case-name>
    <source>Other</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Doherty, et al.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-29T10:02:33-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3351</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Hedge funds sought appraisal of publicly held company's preferred stock.  Issue on appeal was whether the value of accrued dividends was double counted.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">376</id>
    <industry>Telecommunication</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Zazove v. Metromedia</official-case-name>
    <permalink>zazove-v-cede-v-metromedia</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">961</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Zazove v. Metromedia</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary>Hedge funds sought appraisal of publicly held company's preferred stock</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-06T17:01:21-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC365784</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>&quot;Anna Nicole Smith is being sued by a woman who insists the diet product the actress/model endorses is bogus. Angry Janet Luna claims she used Trimspa X32 and expected the &quot;rapid and substantial weight loss&quot; the product promises - but it didn't work for her.&quot;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">377</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Myra Luna et al. v. Anna Nicole Smith, et al.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>myra-luna-et-al-v-anna-nicole-smith-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">967</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Myra Luna et al. v. Anna Nicole Smith, et al.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>motion on class certification</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>SCV 21557</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">378</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Diane Alexander et. al. v. Carolyn Soares, et. al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>diane-alexander-et-al-v-carolyn-soares-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">980</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Diane Alexander et. al. v. Carolyn Soares, et. al</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>11-17 jury trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>7:08-cv-02989-CS</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">379</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Weiss v. Cigna Life Insurance Company of New York</official-case-name>
    <permalink>weiss-v-cigna-life-insurance-company-of-new-york</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">968</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Weiss v. Cigna Life Insurance Company of New York</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:04-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>MDL1507</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">380</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IN RE: Prempro Products Liability Litigation </official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-prempro-products-liability-litigation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">418</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IN RE: Prempro Products Liability Litigation </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>MDL # 1760</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">381</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IN RE: Aredia and Zometa Products Liability Litigation </official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-aredia-and-zometa-products</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">419</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IN RE: Aredia and Zometa Products </short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC373765</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">382</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IN RE HILTON CORPORATION SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-hilton-corporation-shareholder-litigation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">834</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IN RE HILTON CORPORATION SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3070-VCL</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">383</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IN RE HUNTSMAN CORP SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION         </official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-huntsman</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">796</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IN RE HUNTSMAN </short-case-name>
    <source>Hedge Fund</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:2008cv08014</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">384</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Weight Watchers International, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Company</official-case-name>
    <permalink>weight-watchers-international-inc-v-campbell-soup-company</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Patent</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">949</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Weight Watchers International, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Company</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>2471</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>3 day trial dispute over patent ownership after researcher left previous employer. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">385</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Sinomab v. Immunomedics</official-case-name>
    <permalink>sinomab-v-immunomedics</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">959</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Sinomab v. Immunomedics</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Longer Tracking</status>
    <summary>3 day trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Delaware Supreme Court oral arguments</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">386</id>
    <industry>Other</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Delaware Supreme Court Oral Arguments- 11/12/08</official-case-name>
    <permalink>delaware-supreme-court-oral-arguments-2</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Patent</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">972</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Delaware Supreme Court oral arguments</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Delaware Supreme Court oral arguments</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3608-VCS</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">387</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>BASF Corporation v POSM II Properties Partnership, LP and POSM II Limited Partnership, LP </official-case-name>
    <permalink>basf-v-posm-ii</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">795</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>BASF v POSM II</short-case-name>
    <source>Hedge Fund</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>1:05-cv-00360-***</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">388</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Painters District Council No 30 Health &amp; Welfare Fund et al v. Abbott Laboratories et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>painters-dist-council-no-30-v-abbott</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">46</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Painters Dist Council No 30 v. Abbott</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1-02-CV-813373</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">389</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Macadam v. Apple</official-case-name>
    <permalink>macadam-v-apple</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Antitrust</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">47</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Macadam v. Apple</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>37 2005 CA 002403</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>But FAMU trustees stopped paying on the lease in August 2005 and sued Booth in October of that same year. The trustees said the contract would result in a budget deficit of at least $2 million, money the university could not afford to lose. Attorneys for Booth attempted discussions with then interim President Castell Bryant but the matter was never worked out.</description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">390</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Florida A&amp;M University v. Hurley H Booth Jr </official-case-name>
    <permalink>floridaam-v-booth</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">689</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>FloridaA&amp;M v. Booth</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Settled</status>
    <summary>Rental Agreement Dispute</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>CA3604-VCL</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">391</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Solomon, Patrick v. Take Two Interactive Software Inc et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>solomon-patrick-v-take-two</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">794</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Solomon, Patrick v. Take Two </short-case-name>
    <source>Hedge Fund</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:07-cv-02700</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">392</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Simplexgrinnell Lp v. Integrated Sytems &amp; Power, Inc.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>simplexgrinnell-lp-v-integrated-sytems-power-inc</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Patent</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">873</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Simplexgrinnell Lp v. Integrated Sytems &amp; Power, Inc.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>769-VCS</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>This hearing concerns a motion by 3rd party defendants Gen Re Corporation seeking dismissal of underlying litigation. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;In this suit, stockholder plaintiffs seek to recover funds to make American International Group, Inc. (AIG) whole for the harm it suffered when it was revealed that the corporation&#8217;s financial statements were materially misleading. Also, these statements overstated the value of the corporation by billions of dollars, and plaintiffs aver these discrepancies were the consequence of intentional misconduct by AIG&#8217;s top executives. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">393</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: American International Group (AIG) Inc Derivative Litigation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-aig</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">952</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In RE: AIG</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>AIG Derivative Shareholder Litigation.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-05-07T16:03:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1956-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Settlement Hearing in a Shareholder Derivative suit. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">394</id>
    <industry>Finance</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: InfoUSA</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-infousa</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">956</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Infousa</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Settlement Hearing in a Shareholder Derivative suit.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>13530-VCL</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Show cause hearing. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;National Heritage Life (NHL) specialized in the sale of tax-deferred annuities and interest-sensitive life insurance products. The company was placed in rehabilitation in 1994 and in liquidation a year later.</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">395</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In Re: Liquidation of National Heritage Life Ins. Company</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-liquidation-of-national-heritage-life-ins-company</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">957</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In Re: Liquidation of National Heritage Life Ins. Company</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC350864</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">396</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>GEORGE WAGNER ET AL VS D R HORTON</official-case-name>
    <permalink>george-wagner-et-al-vs-d-r-horton</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">217</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>GEORGE WAGNER ET AL VS D R HORTON</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>603121/2007</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Hearing on motion to compel production of documents. &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;With Judge Gammerman. </description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">397</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>RATHER vs. CBS CORPORATION</official-case-name>
    <permalink>rather-vs-cbs-corporation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">491</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>RATHER vs. CBS CORPORATION</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary>Wrongful termination suit against CBS.</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>07-cv-08455</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">398</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Madison Square Garden LP v. National Hockey League et al</official-case-name>
    <permalink>madison-square-garden-lp-v-national-hockey-league-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Employment</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">736</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Madison Square Garden LP v. National Hockey League et al</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC354664</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">399</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>IN RE: VULCAN MATERIALS CONSOLIDATED COVERAGE LITIGATION</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-vulcan-materials-consolidated-coverage-litigation</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">817</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IN RE: VULCAN MATERIALS CONSOLIDATED COVERAGE LITIGATION</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1:08-cv-06858</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:41-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">400</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Pollio v. MF Global Ltd.</official-case-name>
    <permalink>pollio-v-mf-global-ltd</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">870</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Pollio v. MF Global Ltd.</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>03-22761</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:42-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>North Broward Hospital District</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Plaintiff Martha Kornak's husband, 35 year-old James Kornak, died after surgery to install a pacemaker, which was indicated for atrial fibrillation or arrhythmia (fast or irregular heartbeat).  &lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The pacemaker was successfully implanted, but due to a complication, two surgeries were performed -- the second operation was a continuation of the first, but performed the following day. Kornak died of respiratory complications (aspirated fluid) 17 days later.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;According to the plaintiff, Kornak's lungs were clear before the first surgery, but bilateral congestion subsequently developed, and the anesthesiologists should have recognized the respiratory distress and waited a few days before placing Kornak under anesthesia for the second time, given that the procedure was elective and not urgent.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The defense argued that many anesthesiologists and other providers were involved, and their judgment at the time was not negligent.  Kornak did withstand the second anesthesiology, said the defense, and he came through the surgery fine.  Instead, Kornak's respiratory distress did not result from the surgery, but was caused by Kornak's underlying anatomy, which caused pulmonary hemorrages in his lungs.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The jury found in favor of the plaintiff against all defendants, and awarded total damages of approximately $4.5M.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">401</id>
    <industry>Health care</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Kornak v. North Broward Hospital District</official-case-name>
    <permalink>kornak-v-n-broward-hospital</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Kornak</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Malpractice</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">937</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Kornak v. N. Broward Hospital </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Medical malpractice claim based on allegedly negligent anesthesiology</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-06T15:01:10-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type></area-type>
    <case-number>#132, 2008</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:42-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">402</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>AT&amp;T v. Lillis</official-case-name>
    <permalink>delaware-supreme-court-oral-arguments-3</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area></practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">954</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>AT&amp;T v. Lillis</short-case-name>
    <source>Court</source>
    <status>Complete</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-09-28T16:03:33-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>06-cv-05486</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:42-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">403</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe &amp; Maw LLP et al </official-case-name>
    <permalink>grochocinski-v-mayer-brown-rowe-maw-llp-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">305</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe &amp; Maw LLP et al </short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1966-VCN</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:42-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">404</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Capaldi v Richards</official-case-name>
    <permalink>capaldi-v-richards</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">348</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Capaldi v Richards</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted- Continued</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>BC331845</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:42-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>High</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">405</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>MIGUEL JOSE ACOSTA ET AL VS DOLE FOOD COMPANY INC ET AL</official-case-name>
    <permalink>miguel-jose-acosta-et-al-vs-dole-food-company-inc-et-al</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Product Liability</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">414</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>MIGUEL JOSE ACOSTA ET AL VS DOLE FOOD COMPANY INC ET AL</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>3338-CC</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:42-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>Citigroup shareholders sue for breach of fiduciary duties in the bank's investment in sub-prime mortgage interests. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">406</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>In re Citigroup, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation</official-case-name>
    <permalink>in-re-citigroup</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">639</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>In re Citigroup</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>Citigroup shareholder litigation</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>11-12-2008</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:42-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>2 day trial with 20% company owner seeking inspection of books and records prior to merger. </description>
    <expected-value></expected-value>
    <id type="integer">407</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Maitland v. International Registries</official-case-name>
    <permalink>maitland-v-international-registries</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Contract</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">960</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>Maitland v. International Registries</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary>2 day trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>1-04-CV-026653</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:42-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant>Pfizer</defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description>The plaintiffs&#8217; trade secret misappropriation claims arise out of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) clinical drug trials for Bextra, a second generation COX-2 inhibitor.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;According to plaintiff non-profit Ischemia Research &amp; Education Foundation (IREF), a proposed contract provided that Pfizer could have productive access to IREF's EPI1 and EPI2 adverse events databases for a CABG drug trial.  However, Pfizer never signed the contract.  Instead, the plaintiff said, Pfizer hired an IREF employee, who provided parts of the databases for Pfizer's use.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;IREF sought $55M in direct damages.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Pfizer denied that it had conspired with the IREF employee, or stole any trade secret, but suggested that the employee had his own dispute with IREF, and might have acted based upon that dispute.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;The jury awarded IREF damages of over $38M for misappropriation of trade secrets.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;</description>
    <expected-value>Medium</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">408</id>
    <industry>Pharmaceutical</industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>Ischemia Research &amp; Educ. Foundation v. Pfizer</official-case-name>
    <permalink>ischemia-v-pfizer</permalink>
    <plaintiff>Ischemia Research &amp; Educ. Foundation</plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Intellectual Property</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">15</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>IREF v. Pfizer</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Media Request Submitted</status>
    <summary>Pharmaceutical trade secrets trial</summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2010-03-11T07:03:41-05:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number>02002CA013717XXOCAJ</case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:42-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">409</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>David Mendez V Florida Department Of Agriculture</official-case-name>
    <permalink>david-mendez-v-florida-department-of-agriculture</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Other</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">21</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>David Mendez V Florida Department Of Agriculture</short-case-name>
    <source>News</source>
    <status>Pending</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boolean">false</class-action>
    <context></context>
    <created-at type="datetime">2009-04-13T02:02:42-04:00</created-at>
    <defendant></defendant>
    <department>CVN</department>
    <description></description>
    <expected-value>Low</expected-value>
    <id type="integer">410</id>
    <industry></industry>
    <lexis-category></lexis-category>
    <official-case-name>528</official-case-name>
    <permalink>3d63790550ed9fdfa953560f45bfbd149f13be4b</permalink>
    <plaintiff></plaintiff>
    <practice-area>Securities Litigation</practice-area>
    <quickbase-id type="integer">528</quickbase-id>
    <retrial type="boolean">false</retrial>
    <short-case-name>.</short-case-name>
    <source>Docket</source>
    <status>No Trial Date</status>
    <summary></summary>
    <topic></topic>
    <updated-at type="datetime">2009-04-26T18:05:05-04:00</updated-at>
    <west-category></west-category>
  </court-case>
  <court-case>
    <area-type>National</area-type>
    <case-number></case-number>
    <class-action type="boo