You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Karen Kriscuinas by Anthony and Mary Louis Kriscuinas v. Union Underwear Company, D/B/A Fruit of the Loom, Inc., Bradlees Inc., Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., T/a Bradlees, Winterland Productions, Big Step Productions, Inc. v. Chestnut Hill Marketing Co., Inc

Citations: 82 F.3d 405; 1996 WL 164392Docket: 95-1542

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; March 25, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case of Kriscuinas v. Union Underwear Company and others, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the decision of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case, numbered 93-cv-04216, involved Karen Kriscuinas, represented by her parents Anthony and Mary Louis Kriscuinas, against multiple defendants including Union Underwear Company, Bradlees Inc., Stop & Shop Companies, Winterland Productions, Big Step Productions, and Chestnut Hill Marketing Co. The appellate court's ruling was issued on March 26, 1996, and upheld the lower court's findings without any modifications or reversals.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Lower Court's Decision

Application: The appellate court affirmed the decision of the lower court, indicating agreement with the findings and conclusions reached by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the decision of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Jurisdiction of Appellate Review

Application: The case was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, demonstrating the court's jurisdiction over appeals from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the decision of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.