Appellant inventor corporations sought review of a judgment that granted appellee manufacturer corporations' motion to compel arbitration, in an action to recover damages for appellees' alleged antitrust and anticompetitive conduct.

Defendants sought a review of the decision that convicted them of theft in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(a) after they took the victim's car without consent while the keys were not in the ignition and drove the car for a short time during...

Appellant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, resisting arrest without violence, and disturbing a school function.

The defendant was arrested for driving under the influence and found a softball wrapped in black electrical tape in his truck. He claimed he had not seen it before and that his truck had been stolen. Tests revealed an off-white powder containing methamphetamine...

An invitee used a set of stairs with a top step that was visibly higher than the other steps and made of noticeably different materials. When the invitee used the set of stairs a second time, he failed to take the precautions a reasonable person would...

The County Superior Court granted respondent doctor's motion for summary judgment, on his action seeking a declaration that the covenant not to compete with appellant employer was unreasonable and unenforceable. The employer appealed.

The possessors filed an adverse possession claim against the owners of the disputed property. The trial court entered judgment for the possessors and the court below affirmed.

Appellee tenant and appellant landlord entered into a lease for office space in appellant's building. The lease required all modifications to the lease be in writing. Subsequently the parties orally agreed to cancel the lease.

The contract between the news service and publisher provided that the news service would be paid a sum "not exceeding $ 300.00" weekly for its delivery of daily news to the publisher. The publisher terminated the contract in 1894. The news service's...

The December 2019 order temporarily prohibited appellants from contacting the customers of the appellee or engaging in any disparaging communications about the appellee, limiting the prohibition to the appellee’s Northwest Arkansas operations.