Legal Opinion
Electronic Lab Supply Co. v. Cullen
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 30, 1991No. Civ. A. 88-4494PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HUTTON, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs’ response and the defendants’ reply. For the following reasons the motion is GRANTED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are discussed in this Court’s Memorandum dated July 3, 1990, 1990 WL 93983, and need not be repeated at length here. Briefly, Motorola manufactures and sells electronic equipment and components, including various integrated circuits, discrete semiconductors and microprocessor units. Motorola considers below-quality…
2Cases cited14 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
- Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- James R. WHITE, Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Samuel Weaver and Alice Weaver v. Marine BankCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LambertSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Electronic Laboratory Supply Company, Inc. And Jack Snyderman v. Raymond T. Cullen, Ronald B. Hauben, and Joseph WolfsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Electronic Laboratory Supply Co. v. Motorola, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992