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 “Willinger v. Time Warner, Inc.”
Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc.public domain
470 F.Supp.2d 435 (2007) INLINE CONNECTION CORPORATION, Broadband Technology Innovations, LLC, and Pie Squared, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. AOL TIME WARNER INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants. INLINE CONNECTION CORPORATION, Broadband Technology Innovations, LLC, and Pie Squared, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. EARTHLINK, INC., Defendant. Nos. C.A. 02-272-MPT, C.A. 02-477-MPT. United States District Court, D. Dela
Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., LPpublic domain
631 F.Supp.2d 242 (2009) Andrew PARKER and Eric DeBrauwere, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO., L.P., and Time Warner Cable, Inc., Defendants. No. 98-CV-04265 (ILG)(JMA). United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 6, 2009. *245 Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerne
Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GLASSER, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Andrew Parker (“Parker”) and Eric DeBrauwere (“DeBrauwere”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action individually and as representatives of a purported class, against Defendants Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. and Time Warner Cable, Inc. (collectively, “Time Warner” or “Defendants”). Plaintiffs all
445 F.Supp.2d 668 (2006) MARTINSVILLE CABLE, INC., a Virginia non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER N.Y. CABLE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 4:06cv033. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Danville Division. August 24, 2006. *669 Peter S. Partee, Sr., Hunt
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Superior Courtpublic domain
Filed 11/14/18; Certified for Publication 11/20/18 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT WARNER BROS. B289109 ENTERTAINMENT INC., Petitioner, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC500040) v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS
Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.public domain
*1017ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge. On April 29, 2014, Terry T. Gerritsen filed this action against Katja Motion Picture Corporation (“Katja”), New Line Productions, Inc. (“New Line”), and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (“WB”) (collectively, “defendants”).1 On June 20
Kalimantano GmbH v. Motion in Time, Inc.public domain
OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge. Plaintiffs Kalimantano GmbH (“Kalimantano”), Tofik Davidoff (“Davidoff’), Konstantin Felde (“Felde”), and Johannes Schwegler (“Schwegler”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring suit against defendants Motion in Time, Inc. (“MIT”), Eddie Shamayev (“Eddie”), Michael Shamayev (“Michael”), Boris Shamayev (“Boris”), and David Shamayev (“David”) (co
GRIMES, J. *245SUMMARY On March 26, 2018, the trial court in this putative class action filed on January 29, 2013, denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to bring the action to trial within five years ( Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.310 & 583.360 ).1 The court then granted
DAVID T. PROSSER, J. ¶ 1. This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals,1 which affirmed an order of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Lee E. Wells, Judge, dismissing with prejudice an action brought by a putative class of cable television customers against Time Warner Cable of Southeastern Wisconsin, Limited Partnership (Time Warner). ¶ 2. Two issues are pres
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM. Opinion dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. PER CURIAM: These are facial challenges to nine provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub.L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (“1992 Act”), and two provisions of its predecessor, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-549, 98 St
Time Warner Cable v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
943 F.Supp. 1357 (1996) TIME WARNER CABLE OF NEW YORK CITY, A DIVISION OF TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., Paragon Communications d/b/a Time Warner Cable of New York City, Queens Inner Unity Cable Systems d/b/a Quics and TWC Cable Partners d/b/a Staten Island Cable, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Bloomberg, L.P., Intervenor-Defendant. No. 96 CIV. 7736 (DLC). United States District
Warner v. Workmanpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBIN J. CAUTHRON, District Judge. Petitioner, a state court prisoner currently incarcerated pending the execution of a judgment and sentence of death, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (hereinafter “Petition”). (Dkt. No. 24.) Petitioner, appearing with counsel, challenges the judgment and sentence entered against him in Oklahoma County District Court
United States v. Xayver Warnerpublic domain
Sentence vacated and case remanded by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the opinion, in which Judge KING and Judge. DUNCAN joined. NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Xayver Warner, who pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement , to one count of aiding and abetting the theft of a firearm, contends that the government breached the plea agreement. We agree.
995 S.W.2d 152 (1998) HBO, A DIVISION OF TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., Appellant, v. Dean HUCKABEE, Appellee. No. 14-96-01528-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). August 27, 1998. *154 Peter Drew Kennedy, Julie Anne Ford, R. James George, Jr., Austin, for appellant. Diana A. Marshall, J. Tynan Ke
93 F.3d 957 320 U.S.App.D.C. 294 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO., L.P., Appellant/Petitioner,v.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and The United States ofAmerica, Appellees/Respondents,Association of America's Public Television Stations, et al.,Intervenors. Nos. 93-5349, 93-1266, 93-1384, 93-5350 & 93-5351. United States Court of Appeals,Distric
Grothaus v. Warner, 08ap-115 (10-28-2008)public domain
OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Clint A. Warner dba Quality Irrigation Systems ("Warner"), appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Jeanne C. Grothaus ("Grothaus"), on her claims for breach of contract, breach of warranties, and unjust enrichment. Grothaus cross-appeals from the trial court's dismissal of her claim under the Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA").
Fanning v. Warner Center, L.P.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge Plaintiff Michael R. Fanning, as Chief Executive Officer of the Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers (“Central Pension Fund”), brings this action against defendant Warner Center, L.P., under the Employee Retirement
Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Inc.public domain
571 A.2d 1140 (1989) PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and KDS Acquisitions Corp., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. TIME INCORPORATED, T.W. Sub, James F. Bere, Henry C. Goodrich, Clifford J. Grum, Matina S. Horner, David T. Kearns, Gerald M. Levin, J. Richard Munro, N.J. Nicholas, Jr., Donald S. Perkins, Clifton R. Wharton, Michael D. Finkelstein, Henry Luce III, Jason D. McManus, John R. Opel, and Warner Communications, Inc., Defendants Below, Appe
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Warnerpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION (July 22, 2009) The Government of the Virgin Islands (the “Government”) appeals from an order of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John (the “Superior Court”)1 for the conditional release from a mental health facility of Stephanie Warner (“Warner”). I. FACTS In 1990, the Superior Court ordered
105 F.3d 723 323 U.S.App.D.C. 109 TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO., L.P., Appellee,v.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellant.Association of America's Public Television Stations, et al.,Intervenors. Nos. 93-1266, 93-1384, 93-5349, 93-5350 and 93-5351. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Feb. 7, 1997.<