Legal Opinion

Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Coopers & Lybrand

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 11, 1996No. Civil Action Nos. 92-1938, 93-1437 and 93-2089. MDL No. 959. Misc. No. 93-96PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZIEGLER, Chief Judge.

Pending before the court are the motions of defendants, Coopers & Lybrand, a nationwide accounting firm, and a certified class of partners and principles of the firm (hereinafter “Coopers”), for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury on the issue of liability, and for a new trial. At the outset, we must address the argument of the prevailing plaintiffs, including the DeBartolo 1 and Grove Associates Plaintiffs 2 (collectively, the “DeBartolo Plaintiffs”), that we should defer consideration of the pending motions until the damages phase of the trial is…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Herman & MacLean v. HuddlestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. WetzelSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Blackie v. BarrackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  4. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,853 John Schlick v. Penn-Dixie Cement CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
  5. Gibbs v. ErnstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. McCabe v. Ernst & Young, LLPCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
  2. Goldstein v. MilesCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  3. Lightning Litho, Inc. v. Danka Industries, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. In Re Cigna Corp. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. EP Medsystems, Inc. v. Echocath, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1998

6 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