1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 452 F.3d
  5. 452 F.3d 726 (2006)
 

ROTTLUND CO. v. PINNACLE CORP.

Nos. 05-1296, 05-1501, 05-1398.

452 F.3d 726 (2006)

THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC., doing business as Rottlund Homes, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. PINNACLE CORPORATION, doing business as Town & Country Homes, an Illinois corporation; Town & Country Homes, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Bloodgood Sharp Buster Architects and Planners of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa corporation; The Bloodgood Group, Inc., an Iowa corporation, Defendants/Appellees. The Rottlund Company, Inc., doing business as Rottlund Homes, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Pinnacle Corporation, doing business as Town & Country Homes, an Illinois corporation; Town & Country Homes, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Defendants, Bloodgood Sharp Buster Architects and Planners of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa corporation; The Bloodgood Group, Inc., an Iowa corporation, Defendants/Appellants. The Rottlund Company, Inc., doing business as Rottlund Homes, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Pinnacle Corporation, doing business as Town & Country Homes, an Illinois corporation; Town & Country Homes, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Defendants/Appellants, Bloodgood Sharp Buster Architects and Planners of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa corporation; The Bloodgood Group, Inc., an Iowa corporation, Defendants.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Filed: June 20, 2006.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Thomas H. Boyd, argued, Minneapolis, MN (Robert R. Weinstine, Craig S. Krummen, Philip R. Mahowald and David A. Davenport of Minneapolis, on the brief), for appellant

Christopher J. Murdoch of Chicago, IL (Matthew I. Farmer Chicago, IL, Land Darren B. Schwiebert, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief), for appellee Pinnacle Corporation d/b/a Town & Country Homes.

Holly J. Newman and Benjamin Patrick, Minneapolis, MN, for Bloodgood.

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

The Rottlund Company, Inc. (Rottlund) appeals from the district court's denial of its motion for a new trial following a jury verdict adverse to its copyright infringement claim. Because we agree with Rottlund's contention that the district court erred in admitting certain expert testimony, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Appellees have filed a conditional cross appeal, arguing that if a new...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases