Legal Opinion

Wuliger v. Anstaett

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided April 5, 2005No. 3:03 CV 1114PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KATZ, Senior District Judge.

I. Background

Plaintiff William T. Wuliger (“Wuliger”) commenced this action against Defendant for recovery of commissions in connection with the sale of viatical investments. This case is an outgrowth of the Liberte v. Capwill 1 litigation which has spawned related litigation both in the state and federal courts. The essence of this action contends that Defendant Jay Anstaett (“Anstaett”) entered into an agent sales agreement whereby he solicited individuals to invest in viatical settlements offered by Alpha Capital Group (“Alpha”). In return for…

2Cases cited69 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lopardo v. Lehman Bros., Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2008
  2. In Re Keithley Instruments, Inc., Derivative LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2008
  3. Wuliger v. ARDAN GROUP, LTD.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API