Legal Opinion
Koresko v. Murphy
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 12, 2006No. Civil Action 06-4775PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
KATZ, Senior District Judge.
Now before the court are Plaintiffs Motion for Remand and Objection to Removal (Document No. 5) and Defendants’ response thereto (Document No. 6). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Motion will be denied.
I. Summary of Facts
Plaintiff initiated this case in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas by filing a Praecipe for Writ of Summons on October 14, 2005. The summons was served upon Defendants via certified mail on October 21, 2005. Plaintiff subsequently filed his Complaint on September 24, 2006 and served it upon Defendants via…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & ManufacturingSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeighSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lane v. CBS Broadcasting Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
- Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito TuCoop v. 3G Green Gold Group LLCDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2023
- STEWART v. LEWISDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2019