⚖ 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 “Willinger v. Time Warner, Inc.”

District Court, D. Delaware · 2007-01-23 · Published · cited 3× · 470 F. Supp. 2d 435; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4761; 2007 WL 174168
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
District Court, E.D. New York · 2009-07-06 · Published · cited 16× · 631 F. Supp. 2d 242; 48 Communications Reg. (P&F) 181; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57162; 2009 WL 1940791
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
District Court, E.D. New York · 2007-01-25 · Published · cited 4× · 239 F.R.D. 318; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5838; 2007 WL 214425
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
District Court, W.D. Virginia · 2006-08-24 · Published · cited 2× · 445 F. Supp. 2d 668; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59905; 2006 WL 2460452
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
California Court of Appeal · 2018-11-20 · Published · cited 0×
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
District Court, C.D. California · 2015-01-30 · Published · cited 290× · 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84978; 2015 WL 4069617
*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
District Court, S.D. New York · 2013-04-12 · Published · cited 45× · 939 F. Supp. 2d 392; 2013 WL 1499408; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53309
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
California Court of Appeal, 5th District · 2018-11-14 · Published · cited 7× · 240 Cal. Rptr. 3d 438; 29 Cal. App. 5th 243
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
Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2002-07-16 · Published · cited 73× · 2002 WI 108; 649 N.W.2d 626; 255 Wis. 2d 447; 2002 Wisc. LEXIS 507
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
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996-08-30 · Published · cited 0× · 93 F.3d 957; 320 U.S. App. D.C. 294
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
District Court, S.D. New York · 1996-11-06 · Published · cited 17× · 943 F. Supp. 1357; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16479; 1996 WL 641032
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
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2011-08-31 · Published · cited 1× · 814 F. Supp. 2d 1188; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98369; 2011 WL 3876022
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
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2016-04-27 · Published · cited 2× · 820 F.3d 678; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7636; 2016 WL 1660200
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.
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · 1998-08-27 · Published · cited 12× · 995 S.W.2d 152; 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 5399; 1998 WL 889828
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
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996-08-30 · Published · cited 45× · 93 F.3d 957
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
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008-10-28 · Published · cited 0× · 2008 Ohio 5563
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").
District Court, District of Columbia · 2013-11-26 · Published · cited 1× · 999 F. Supp. 2d 263; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167836; 2013 WL 6178495
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
Supreme Court of Delaware · 1990-03-09 · Published · cited 60× · 571 A.2d 1140
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
District Court, Virgin Islands · 2009-07-22 · Published · cited 0× · 52 V.I. 587; 2009 WL 2251281; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64982
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
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997-02-07 · Published · cited 5× · 105 F.3d 723; 323 U.S. App. D.C. 109; 6 Communications Reg. (P&F) 495; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2016
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.<