Legal Opinion
Implement Service, Inc. v. Tecumseh Products Co.
District Court, S.D. Indiana
Decided December 14, 1989No. IP 88-849-CPublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TINDER, District Judge.
This cause comes before the court on two motions. The defendants H.R.R. Zimmerman Company, Andy W. Zimmerman, and Donald Struck have moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant Tecumseh Products Company has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56.
A. Basis for Subject Matter Jurisdiction
This suit originated in an Indiana state court — the…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex HospitalSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- American Nurses' Association v. State of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. RazumicSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Sports Racing Services, Inc. v. Sports Car Club of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
- Hamade v. Sunoco, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2006
- Broadhurst v. MoenningIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
- Hamade v. SUNOCO, INC.(R & M)Michigan Court of Appeals · 2006
- The Pantry, Inc. v. Stop-N-Go Foods, Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1991
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.