Legal Opinion
MHB Distributors, Inc. v. Parker Hannifin Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 4, 1992No. Civ. 90-2975PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LOUIS H. POLLAK, Senior District Judge.
Defendants Parker Hannifin Corporation (“Parker”) and RG Industries (“RG”) have moved for summary judgment on each count of plaintiff MHB Distributors’ (“MHB”) Amended Complaint. For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motion will be granted.
I
When considering a summary judgment motion, the court must take as true the evidence of the non-movant and draw all justifiable inferences in the non-movant’s favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). For purposes of this summary judgment…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Zachair, Ltd. v. DriggsDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1997
- Gordon v. Lewistown HospitalDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
- Storer Cable Communications, Inc. v. City of MontgomeryDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 1993
- DJ Manufacturing Corp. v. Tex-Shield, Inc.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2002