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.
6 opinions for “Ambrose v. Comcast Corporation”
492 F.Supp.2d 480 (2007) Willie PORTER, Plaintiff, v. BROADSPIRE AND THE COMCAST LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendants. Civil Action No. 05-1684. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. March 15, 2007. *481 *482 Gregory G. Paul, Peirce Law Offices, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff. <
Marston v. Orlandopublic domain
BLAKE, J. *527 This legal malpractice action requires an understanding of the requirements for expert testimony under Fishman v. Brooks , 396 Mass. 643 </
Karl Ebert v. General Mills, Inc.public domain
BEAM, Circuit Judge. General Mills, Inc., challenges the district court’s grant of class certification in this environmental-contamination lawsuit. 1 Plaintiffs, all owners of residential properties in a particular neighborhood in Minneapolis, Minnesota, sued General Mills, alleging General Mills caused the chemical subst
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Levinpublic domain
Brown, C.J., dissenting. {¶ 42} Cable companies and satellite companies sell the same thing: pay-television service. But in Ohio they are not taxed the same. Satellite companies must collect the 5 1/2 percent sales tax; cable companies do not. {¶ 43} Why the difference? When the tax bill was introduced, it imposed an equal tax regardless of sell
Griffin v. Biermanpublic domain
941 A.2d 475 (2008) 403 Md. 186 Joyce A. GRIFFIN v. Howard N. BIERMAN, et al. No. 79, Sept. Term, 2007. Court of Appeals of Maryland. February 12, 2008. *477 Deepak Gupta (Michael T. Kirkpatrick and Brian Wolfman of Public Citizen Litigation Group of Washington, DC, Philip Robinson of Civil Justice Inc. of
SFF-TIR, LLC v. Stephensonpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the requests in the Plaintiffs’ Mo*867tion to Strike Affirmative Defenses, filed November 4, 2015 (Doc. 191)(“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses”); (ii) the requests in the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on