Cases

J-A28015-14 2015 PA Super 23 IN RE: ESTATE OF LEONARD J. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MOSKOWITZ, DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: MICHAEL B. FEIN AND : BERNICE FEIN : No. 3302 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Decrees filed October 31, 2013 In the Court of

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GENER8, LLC and SYMBIENT ) PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2022-0426-LWW ) SCOTT CASTANON, ) ) Defendant. ) M

OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.: Appellants, Michael B. Fein and Bernice Fein, appeal from the decree entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which granted partial summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Estate of *376 Leonard J. Moskowitz, Deceased (“Estate”), and ordered Appellants to transf

868 F.Supp. 634 (1994) RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, in its capacity as Receiver of United Savings Bank, F.S.B., Plaintiff, v. Donald J. MOSKOWITZ, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 93-2080. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. October 13, 1994. *635 Daniel Kinburn, Williams, Caliri, Miller & Otley, Wayne, NJ, for plain

MEMORANDUM OPINION SIMANDLE, Chief Judge: Before the Court is Defendants Foremost Signature Insurance Company, Maryland Casualty Company, and Farmer’s Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Product Source International, LLC’s Amended Complaint, For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss. 1. Background. The facts of this case were summarized in this

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: This case is a judgment enforcement action. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has determined that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this *369action. See d'Amico Dry Ltd. v. Primera Mar. (Hellas) Ltd.,

865 F.Supp. 130 (1994) Talia PAGOVICH, Plaintiff, v. Henry MOSKOWITZ and William Kronethal, Defendants. No. 93 Civ. 3195 (CSH). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 13, 1994. *131 *132 Stephen A. Marshall, Rubin Baum Levin Constant & Friedman, New York City, for Talia Pag

946 F.Supp. 322 (1996) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as successor to Resolution Trust Corporation, Receiver of United Savings Bank, F.S.B., Plaintiff, v. Donald J. MOSKOWITZ, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 93-2028. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. December 2, 1996. *323 Susan L. Hall, Daniel Kinburn, Dw

McCann, J. For the Plaintiff: Erin Bradbury, Esq. (Philips, Silver, Taiman, Aframe & Sinrich). For the Defendant Lumbermans Mutual: William T. Bogaert, Esq., Kathleen E. Kelly, Esq. (Wilson, Esler, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker). For the Defendant Huntington, Goodnow, Connors, Inc.: John A. Wickstrom, Esq.1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BECHTLE, District Judge. Presently before the court are plaintiff’s motions for class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3) and to compel the production of documents which defendants claim are protected by the attorney-client privilege. For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff’s motion for class certification will be granted as to counts I and III,

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BUCKLEY FAMILY TRUST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2018-0903-AGB ) CHARLES PATRICK MCCLEARY, ) JAMES MCCLEARY, JOHN ) MCCLEARY, MARGARET ) MCCLEARY STURGES, and S

ORDER AND OPINION ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge: A train derailment has set off a chain reaction of claims and cross-claims that question the applicability of the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 11706, the default scheme for rail carriers’ liability for goods entrusted to their transport. As a general rule, under the Carmack Amendment, rail carriers are liable for the full value of the go

Opinion ELIA, J. In May 2009, the United States Congress enacted the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (PTFA or Act) (Pub.L. No. 111-22, div. A, tit. VH, §§ 702-704 (May 20, 2009) 123 Stat. 1660) and, in 2010, the Congress amended it (Pub.L. No. 111-203, tit. XIV, § 1484 (July 21, 2010)

ORDER Paul G. Rosenblatt, United States District Judge Among the motions pending before the Court is Techway Industrial Company Limited’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5) (Doc. 123). Having considered the parties’ memoranda in light of the relevant record, the Court finds that defendant Techway Industrial Company

754 F.Supp.2d 1208 (2010) In re TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. UNINTENDED ACCELERATION MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This document relates to: All personal liability/wrong death cases. Case No. 8:10ML 02151 JVS (FMOx). United States District Court, C.D. California. December 9, 2010. *1211 Andrea Bierstein, Clinton

327 F.Supp.2d 554 (2004) In re WIRELESS TELEPHONE RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Murray, et al. v. Motorola, Inc. et al. (D.D.C.) Schofield v. Matsushita Electric, et al. (D.D.C.) Cochran, et al. v. Audiovox Corp., et al. (D.D.C.) Keller, et al. v. Nokia, Inc., et al. (D.D.C.) Schwamb, et al. v. Qualcomm, et al. (D.D.C.) Agro, et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al.

141 Nev., Advance Opinion 9 - I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY; No. 89347 CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC.; THE ASSOCIATED PRESS; NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC.; WP COMPANY LLC; REUTERS NEWS & MEDIA INC.; AND AMERICAN BROADCASTIN

OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties’ motions for partial summary judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. This dispute concerns a failed mortgage loan transaction or, as it is described by the parties, a “hard money loan.”1 Plaintiff 514 Broadway Investment Trust (“Plaintiff’ or “the Investment Trust”) is based i

93 F.Supp.2d 300 (2000) RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, as Receiver for Empire Federal Savings Bank Of America, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. No. 93-CV-632C. United States District Court, W.D. New York. February 22, 2000. *301 Hopkins & Sutter (David G. Goroff, of Counsel), Chicago, IL, f

153 F.Supp.2d 268 (2001) James McDONALD, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. PENSION PLAN OF THE NYSA-ILA PENSION TRUST FUND, and Board of Trustees of the Pension Plan of the NYSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, Defendants. No. 99 CIV 9054 NRB. United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 29, 2001.</