Legal Opinion

Boro Hall Corp. v. General Motors Corp.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided November 1, 1946No. Civil Action No. 5592PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BYERS, District Judge.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The amended complaint asserts two causes of action:(1) Breach of contract.(2) As stated in the plaintiff’s brief, a claim for relief which “is essentially equitable in nature and based upon es-toppel. * * * whether or not the defendants had a right to reduce the plaintiff’s zone of influence after the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Boro Hall Corporation v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
  2. Boro Hall Corporation v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kaminski Ex Rel. Kaminski v. WoodburyNevada Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Boro Hall Corp. v. General Motors Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1947
  3. Boro Hall Corp. v. General Motors Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1948
  4. Kaminski Ex Rel. Kaminski v. WoodburyNevada Supreme Court · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API