Legal Opinion
City of Cincinnati, Ohio v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided May 1, 1986No. Civ. B 84-431 (TFGD)PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DALY, Chief Judge.
After review and over objection, the ruling of the Magistrate is hereby ADOPTED, APPROVED and RATIFIED. Summary judgment will therefore enter on Counts One, Two, Three and Five. Partial summary judgment shall enter on Count Four in accordance with the Magistrate’s ruling.
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THOMAS P. SMITH, United States Magistrate.
I
This is an action sounding in contract and tort requiring a construction of the applica ble statutes of limitations, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42a-2-725 and § 52-577. Various theories of liability are advanced in the five…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Annette Heyman v. Commerce and Industry Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- H. Sand & Co., Inc. v. Airtemp CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Webco Industries, Inc. v. Thermatool Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- H. Sand & Co., Inc. v. Airtemp Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- Baker v. Dec InternationalMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
- Washington Freightliner, Inc. v. Shantytown Pier, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.