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.
11 opinions for “Christopher Jenkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Health”
Kinkel v. Cingular Wirelesspublic domain
Docket No. 100925. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS DONNA M. KINKEL, Appellee, v. CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC, Appellant. Opinion filed October 5, 2006. JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Freeman, Fitzgerald, Kilbride, and Karmeier concurred in the judgment and opinion. Chief Justice Thomas an
Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLCpublic domain
857 N.E.2d 250 (2006) 223 Ill.2d 1 306 Ill.Dec. 157 Donna M. KINKEL, Appellee, v. CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC, Appellant. No. 100925. Supreme Court of Illinois. October 5, 2006. *254 Kurt E. Reitz, Roman P. Wuller, Robert J. Wagner, Heath H. Hooks, of Thompson Coburn, L.L.P., Belleville,
Kristian v. Comcast Corp.public domain
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. This appeal requires us to evaluate the enforceability of arbitration agreements that Comcast, a cable television provider, invoked against a group of its subscribers, who have sued it for violations of state and federal antitrust laws. Concluding that the arbitration agreements did not have retroactive effect, the district court ruled that the subscribers could not be compelled to arbitrate their antitru
446 F.3d 25 Martha KRISTIAN and James D. Masterman, Plaintiffs, Appellees,v.COMCAST CORPORATION; Comcast Mo Group, Inc.; Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC; Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc.; Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.; and Comcast Holdings Corporation, Defendants, Appellants, AT & T Broadband, Defendant.Jack Rogers and Paul Pinella, Plaintiffs, Appellees,v.Comcast Corporation and AT & T Broadband, Defendants,
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 782 II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 734 III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT 737 IV. WAS THE IN LIMINE HEARING TAINTED BY UNFAIR PROCEDURES? 738 A. Inadequate Opportunity to Depose Defense Experts 738 <
ACCEPTED 04-14-00829-cv 04-14-00829-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXA
East Texas Medical Center Gilmer v. Birder Porterpublic domain
ACCEPTED 12-14-00220-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/4/2015 3:01:53 PM
ACCEPTED 04-15-00469-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/3
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.public domain
449 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 99-2496(GK). United States Distri
ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4243321 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigationpublic domain
35 F.3d 717 63 USLW 2183, 30 Fed.R.Serv.3d 644,40 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 379 In re PAOLI RAILROAD YARD PCB LITIGATION.Mabel BROWN, Individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situatedv.SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY("SEPTA"); National Railroad PassengerCorporation ("Amtrak"); andConsolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail")v.UNITED STATES of America; Roy F. W