Legal Opinion
Pikor v. Cinerama Productions Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 3, 1960PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DAWSON, District Judge.
This is a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, in that plaintiffs lack capacity to sue, plus a motion to award summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 on the grounds recited above, and on the further ground that plaintiffs do not have any claim upon which relief can be granted. There is also a cross-motion to permit John W. Pikor, Stella Pikor and Jerome Pikor to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24.
Plaintiffs Edward…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Tenney v. RosenthalNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
- Truncale v. Universal Pictures Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1948
- Bankers Nat. Corp. v. BarrDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
- Miller v. MillerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- Miller v. MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Fuller v. VolkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
- Ina Frankel Abramson, Irving Hellman and Beatrice Hellman v. Pennwood Investment Corp., and Edward Nathan, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1984
- Braasch v. GoldschmidtCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1964
- Fuller v. VolkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.