Legal Opinion
Pashman v. Chemtex, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 23, 1987No. 85 Civ. 3489 (JMW)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WALKER, District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
The instant motions arise out of an action brought by Plaintiff Howard B. Pashman (“Pashman”) for breach of an employment contract, under which Defendant Chemtex, Inc. (“Chemtex”) allegedly promised to pay plaintiff a percentage commission on a sales contract which plaintiff helped defendant to procure. Defendant moves for both summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim, and for sanctions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant’s motion for sanctions is denied.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- James O. Quarles v. General Motors Corporation (Motors Holding Division)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Knight v. U.S. Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Haymes v. SmithDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1976
- Quaker Chair Corp. v. Litton Business System, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1976
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Howard B. Pashman v. Chemtex, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Howard B. Pashman v. Chemtex, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Lin v. UT Freight Service (USA) Ltd.District Court, E.D. New York · 2020
- Rieser v. Bruck Plastics Co. (In re Trinity Plastics, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1991