Legal Opinion

Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd. v. Wilson

District Court, W.D. Tennessee

Decided January 12, 2000No. 99-2382-VPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

VESCOVO, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Kingvision Pay Per View, Ltd. sued defendant David M. Wilson, the owner of Shelby’s Bar and Grill, for unauthorized interception and display of a broadcast of a series of boxing matches in violation of sections 553 and 605 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. § 521 et seq. Defendant now moves the court for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiffs lawsuit is time barred by the statute of limitations. 1 For the reasons that follow, defendant’s motion is denied. 2

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Leo LaPOINTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOWORKERS LOCAL 600, and Doug Thompson, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
  4. North Star Steel Co. v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  5. Everett v. Cobb County School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Prostar v. MassachiCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2001
  2. KingVision Pay Per View, Ltd. v. Boom Town Saloon, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2000
  3. In Re Cases Filed by DIRECTV, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2004
  4. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Griffith, Jr.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2020
  5. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. SimpsonDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2021

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

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

Powered by the Exa API