Legal Opinion
William Radobenko and Mary G. Radobenko, His Wife, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Automated Equipment Corporation, a California Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 18, 1975No. 73-2897PublishedCited by 295 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Before KOELSCH and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and KELLEHER, * District Judge. KELLEHER, District Judge:
This appeal is from an order granting appellees summary judgment in an action brought by appellants William and Mary Radobenko for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and other wrongful acts. We affirm.
I
In May of 1969, William Radobenko, a mechanical engineer, entered into stock and guaranty agreements with Kasper Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Kasper) for the purpose of incorporating Automated Equipment Corporation (hereinafter AEC). Kasper, a California corporation,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Perma Research and Development Company v. The Singer CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
- Suckow Borax Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Borax Consolidated, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- George L. Stansifer, Dba Lakewood Sports Cars v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, and J. O. Fisher Corporation (Jim Fisher Motors)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- Herbert P. Caplan v. John H. RobertsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Debbie and Doreen Soria v. Oxnard School District Board of TrusteesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by295 opinions
- William Butler Smith v. Leman HudsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Arnold G. Barwick v. The Celotex Corporation, Keene Corporation, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, H.K. Porter, Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
- British Airways Board, 1 v. The Boeing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- Van T. Junkins and Associates, Inc., an Alabama Corporation v. U.S. Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
290 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.