⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “450 East Philadelphia Avenue Operations LLC”

Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · 2025-02-27 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 15-24-00104-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/27/2025 3:35 PM No. 15-24-00104-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE __________________________________________
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2023-01-06 · Published · cited 166× · 57 F.4th 131
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-3124 ____________ RHONDA H. WILSON; THE LAW OFFICES OF RHONDA HILL WILSON, P.C., Appellants v. USI INSURANCE SERVICE LLC; HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY ____________ On Appeal from the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2023-01-30 · Published · cited 0×
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ Nos. 22-2003, 22-2004, 22-2005, 22-2006, 22-0007, 22-2008, 22-2009, 22-2010, 22-2011 ________________ In re: LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC Debtor LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC v. THOSE PARTIES LISTED ON APPENDIX A TO COMPLAI
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2023-01-30 · Published · cited 0×
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ Nos. 22-2003, 22-2004, 22-2005, 22-2006, 22-0007, 22-2008, 22-2009, 22-2010, 22-2011 ________________ In re: LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC Debtor LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC v. THOSE PARTIES LISTED ON APPENDIX A TO COMPLAI
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011-08-16 · Published · cited 1× · 811 F. Supp. 2d 1112; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91166; 2011 WL 3606906
811 F.Supp.2d 1112 (2011) Lucille OLIVIERI, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF BUCKS, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 09-1240. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 16, 2011. *1114 Joseph M. Fioravanti, Media, PA, Thomas D. Schneider, Wallingford, PA, for Plaintiff. Alexandra Bak-Boychuk, Frank A. Chernak, Ball
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2023-03-31 · Published · cited 0×
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ Nos. 22-2003, 22-2004, 22-2005, 22-2006, 22-0007, 22-2008, 22-2009, 22-2010, 22-2011 ________________ In re: LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC Debtor LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC v. THOSE PARTIES LISTED ON APPENDIX A TO COMPLA
Ungarean, T. v. CNApublic domain
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2022-11-30 · Published · cited 0× · 286 A.3d 353; 2022 Pa. Super. 204
J-E01002-22 2022 PA Super 204 TIMOTHY A. UNGAREAN, DMD D/B/A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SMILE SAVERS DENTISTRY, PC, : PENNSYLVANIA INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A : CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED : PERSONS : : : v. : : No. 490
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2023-03-21 · Published · cited 63× · 63 F.4th 211
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 21-2472 _____________ CHARLES MACK, Appellant v. JOHN YOST, Warden; TIM KUHN, Associate Warden; JEFFREY STEPHENS, Trust Fund Officer; SAMUEL VENSLOSKY, Correctional officer, sued in their individual capacities; DOUG ROBERTS
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017-03-24 · Published · cited 0×
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _________________________ No. 15-2122 _________________________ DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK; MAYA VAN ROSSUM, the Delaware Riverkeeper, Petitioners v. SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2025-09-04 · Published · cited 0×
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-1820 ____________ BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO., Appellant v. SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ADMINISTRATOR CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; CENTER
New York Court of Appeals · 2024-11-25 · Published · cited 0× · 2024 NY Slip Op 05867
Colt v New Jersey Tr. Corp. (2024 NY Slip Op 05867) Colt v New Jersey Tr. Corp. 2024 NY Slip Op 05867 Decided on November 25, 2024 Court of Appeals Singas, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bure
Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · 2025-06-20 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 15-25-00092-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/20/2025 4:56 PM NO. 15-25-00092-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK
Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · 2025-06-20 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 15-25-00108-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/20/2025 4:46 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE NO. ____________ CLERK FILED IN
District Court, S.D. New York · 2011-09-07 · Published · cited 2× · 811 F. Supp. 2d 883; 2011 WL 4089596
811 F.Supp.2d 883 (2011) In re SEPTEMBER 11 LITIGATION Mary Bavis, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark Bavis, deceased, Plaintiff, v. UAL Corporation et al., Defendants. No. 21 MC 101 AKH, 02 CIV. 7154. United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 7, 2011. *885 Derek Todd Smith, Zafer A
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014-09-05 · Published · cited 3× · 44 F. Supp. 3d 581; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123836
AMENDED MEMORANDUM JONES, II, District Judge. In Civil Action No. 10-4374, Relators Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlo-chowski (“Plaintiffs”) bring this qui tam action in accordance with the False Claims Act (“FCA”), pursuant to -31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33. Relators allege that their former employer, Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) fraudulently misled the government and omitted, c
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016-05-23 · Published · cited 0×
13‐3565 In re: LIBOR‐Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2015 (Argued: November 13, 2015 Decided: May 23, 2016) Docket Nos. 13‐3565‐cv (L), 13‐3636‐cv (CON), 15‐432‐cv (CON), 15‐441‐cv (CON), 15‐454‐cv (CON), 15‐477‐cv (CON), 15‐494‐cv (CON), 15‐498‐cv (CON), 15‐524‐cv (C
Bavis v. UAL Corp.public domain
District Court, S.D. New York · 2011-09-07 · Published · cited 1× · 811 F. Supp. 2d 883; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107232
ORDER AND OPINION REGULATING BURDENS OF PROOF AND ISSUES FOR JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, District Judge: This case is the last remaining wrongful-death action of the 95 originally filed. Trial is to begin November 7, 2011. The parties seek rulings on certain basic issues: (i) whether federal law preempts state law on the standard of care applicable to Defendants’ conduct; (ii) whether, if feder
United States Court of Federal Claims · 1997-09-12 · Published · cited 1× · 39 Fed. Cl. 125; 41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,179; 1997 U.S. Claims LEXIS 189; 1997 WL 573494
OPINION HORN, Judge. Allied Technology Group, Inc. (ATG) submitted a proposal in response to a Department of the Navy solicitation for the pre-installation coordination, refurbishment, and installation of the Joint Maritime Command Information System (JMCIS), fiber-optic systems, wide area networks, and local area networks onboard ships and at shore facilities. Contract award was made on November 21, 1996
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006-07-28 · Published · cited 63× · 440 F. Supp. 2d 392; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51833; 2006 WL 2089153
440 F.Supp.2d 392 (2006) Sheralina BAKER, Carrie Contessa, Pamela Jack, Christine Smith, and Tara Scott, Plaintiffs, v. FAMILY CREDIT COUNSELING CORPORATION; Debt Solutions, Inc., James R. Armstrong, Jr., Igor M. Gelman, FCCC Services Inc., JRA Property & Land Management, Llc, Top Financial Sales & Marketing, Inc., Consumer Financial Marketing, Inc., Consumer Debt Management & Education, Inc., and Vegga Corporation, Defendants.</
Connecticut Appellate Court · 2017-06-20 · Published · cited 13× · 165 A.3d 193; 174 Conn. App. 18; 2017 WL 2561205; 2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 252
DiPENTIMA, C.J. *21 In this appeal, we address the contours of judicial review in cases in which a discretionary determination of a common interest ownership association is challenged. The defendants, Rustle