Legal Opinion

Freidman v. General Motors Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided June 22, 2010No. 08 Civ. 2458(SAS)PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, a group of taxi companies and the individual owners of handicap-accessible taxicab medallions permitting the operation of handicap-accessible taxicabs in New York City (collectively, the “Taxi Companies”), brought the instant diversity action 1 against Areola Sales & Service Corporation (“Areola” or “defendant”), the last remaining defendant. 2 Areola now moves for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining breach of contract claim. 3 For the following reasons, Areola’s motion for summary judgment…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
  5. Roe v. City of WaterburyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Noel v. New York City Taxi & Limousine CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
  2. House of Diamonds v. BORGIONI, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
  3. Roberts v. Weight Watchers International, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2016
  4. Tomra of North America, Inc. v. Count & Crush, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API