Appeals court rejects Super Bowl XLV seating lawsuit
A federal appeals court on Monday rejected a lawsuit filed by a father and daughter from Western Pennsylvania and a Florida couple displeased with their temporary seats at Super Bowl XLV in Dallas, where the Steelers lost to the Green Bay Packers.
Richard Pollock of Beaver County and Cheryl Pollock of Moon, along with Paul and Cynthia Kutcher of Florida, argued they were defrauded by the National Football League and the Dallas Cowboys in 2011 because they were relocated from a temporary-seating area, which was deemed unsafe, to a standing-room area with obstructed views of the field.
Paul Kutcher, a lawyer, represented the plaintiff group that filed its lawsuit in February 2012, about a year after the game. U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone dismissed the case in March 2013. The plaintiffs appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pirates down Cardinals, inch closer in wild-card chase
- Police searching Level Green area for bank robber
- For Steelers outside linebacker Jones, size is not an obstacle
- High school football notebook: Summer heat possible for season’s first week
- Federal appeals panel orders new trial for Penn Hills man
- Pitt’s ACC men’s basketball schedule announced
- Homeowners warned of bogus land surveyors
- John Lennon’s killer sorry for ‘being such an idiot’
- WVU secondary adjusting to changes as No. 2 Alabama looms
- Pirates notebook: McCutchen returns to starting lineup; Alvarez out
- Penguins goalie Fleury likely to enter season without new contract