Legal Opinion
Design & Development, Inc. v. Vibromatic Manufacturing, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 17, 1973No. Civ. A. No. 72-1212PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LUONGO, District Judge.
Defendant, Salem H. Lumish, has moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), and for a stay of proceedings under Rule 62(b) and (f), F.R.Civ. P. The judgment, entered by default, was obtained in a suit instituted by plaintiff, Design and Development, Inc., against Vibromatic Manufacturing, Inc., Alfred B. Howe and Lumish to enforce a settlement agreement which terminated a prior suit. (Design and Development, Inc. v. Vibromatic Manufacturing Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 71-582, E.D.Pa.) The settlement agreement provided for the delivery by Vibromatic of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Schoble v. SchobleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Wagg v. HallDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1967
- First National Bank & Trust Co. v. ShafferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Charles J. Webb Sons Co. v. WebberSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Pittsburg Valve, Foundry & Construction Co. v. KlingelhoferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
3Cited by16 opinions
- Bryant, Inc. v. WaltersMississippi Supreme Court · 1986
- Combs v. Coal & Mineral Management Services, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1984
- Avila Group, Inc. v. Norma J. of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1977
- Stanley A. Klopp, Inc. v. John Deere Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Systems Industries, Inc. v. HanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1985
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.