While the district court's claim construction was reversed, but the finding that defendants' product would infringe claim 1 was affirmed. However, plaintiffs' patent was invalid for inherent anticipation, and thus, the district court's judgment that defendants were not liable for infringement was affirmed.

The court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant directors' decision to approve the merger was not the product of an informed business judgment, that efforts to amend the merger agreement were ineffectual, and that defendant directors had not disclosed all material facts to the stockholders.

The judgment was affirmed.

The appellate court withdrew its prior opinion, vacated the judgment of inequitable conduct, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. It affirmed the trial court's determination that defendant's product would infringe patents held by the patentee.

The court reversed the judgment of the appeals court which awarded damages to the residents for their fear of getting cancer, and as to the punitive award, and reinstated the trial court's damages to them for future medical monitoring due to exposure from the manufacturer. The matter was remanded for a retrial on the issue of damages and the issue of the manufacturer's liability for intentional infliction of emotional...

The court reversed the judgments of the appellate court and the trial court with respect to the second count of plaintiff's complaint, the retaliatory discharge count, except with respect to the prayer of that count for punitive damages, holding that the cause of action in the second count was improperly dismissed. The court affirmed the judgments in other respects and remanded the matter to the circuit court for...

The court reversed the judgment, holding that parol evidence was admissible to ascertain the true intent of the contractual parties even where the writing seemed clear and unambiguous.

The grant of summary judgment on non-infringement was affirmed. The construction of the patent claim term "convex top surface" was reversed. The grant of summary judgment of invalidity based on anticipation was reversed. The refusal to award sanctions was affirmed. The case was remanded.

The court reversed the denial of plaintiff administratrix's motions to dismiss the affirmative defenses of defendants, an estate and a railway, and reinstated the decision to deny the motions, finding that the foreign guest statute, the Highway Traffic Act of Province of Ontario, was applicable to plaintiff's suit where the guest-passenger was a domiciliary of Ontario at the time of the accident in that jurisdiction...

The court affirmed the judgment on petitioner insured manufacturer's petition for relief by writ from respondent Superior Court of Los Angeles County's denial of petitioner's motion for summary judgment in petitioner's action for declaratory relief against real parties in interest insurers because under their insurance policies they owed petitioner the duty to defend against tort actions. The court remanded...

The appellate court disagreed with the district court's construction of the claim term "about" in claims 23 and 37 of the patent. Because the court further held claims 23 and 37 obvious in light of the prior art, it vacated the judgment of the district court and held the claims invalid and not infringed.

The court of appeals reversed the court of appeals for veterans claims' order affirming the BVA's decision, and remanded the case to the court of appeals for veterans claims for further proceedings.

The court reversed, holding that the "pure" form of comparative negligence should be adopted in California in place of the contributory negligence doctrine. Thus, even though plaintiff contributed toward the accident, defendant could be held liable for his portion of fault.

The court held that plaintiff employee's action against defendant employer for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims should not have been dismissed on a summary judgment motion. The court modified the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the action for a reassessment of defendant employer's liability for defendant supervisors' conduct.

The court reversed the appellate court, and the trial court's award of compensatory damages was affirmed for public policy reasons. Punitive damages could be awarded for retaliatory discharge, however, punitive damages were not warranted in the case because the cause of action was a novel one.

The court granted the firm's motion for leave to intervene. It also granted the petition for mandamus as to certain classifications of documents.

The court denied petitioner's writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to justify the untimeliness of his writ and failed to establish a fundamental miscarriage of justice in the imposition of his convictions or sentence.

The court reversed the permanent injunction against defendant athletic association and remanded the case for entry of judgment for defendant on plaintiff student athletes' state constitutional invasion of privacy claims. Defendant had not violated plaintiffs' privacy rights through its use of a drug testing program that was reasonably calculated to further defendant's legitimate interest in safeguarding intercollegiate...

The court affirmed the judgments of the trial court.

The chancery court granted the motion to dismiss.

The court reversed the decision of the trial court.

The order granting defendant foreign corporation's motion to dismiss was reversed and the case was remanded because sufficient minimum contacts existed for the trial court to exercise jurisdiction over the foreign corporation without violating due process.

The trial court's summary judgment was vacated, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment, which was stayed for 180 days to allow the legislature to take such action as it deemed appropriate.

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that appellees, adoptive parents and child, could maintain claims of intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and of breach of a duty to disclose all relevant information against appellants, adoption placement agency, its director and adoption specialist, and Northampton County Children and Youth, its executive director and caseworker...

The court affirmed the district court's judgment. It stated that the prisoner incurred two strikes under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(g), one for filing a complaint containing a frivolous claim and another for filing an appeal raising at least one frivolous error claim.