Legal Opinion

Coleman v. Dover Corporation

District Court, E.D. Tennessee

Decided January 29, 1974No. Civ. A. 6740PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NEESE, District Judge.

This is a diversity action by the plaintiff Mr. Coleman to recover a “finder’s fee” * from the defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), (c). The defendant moved for a summary judgment. Rule 56(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The pleadings, depositions and affidavits on file show that there is no genuine issue extant between the parties as to any material fact, and that the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Therefrom, it appears undisputed that:

The plaintiff Mr. Coleman addressed an…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Cray, McFawn & Co. v. Hegarty, Conroy & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
  2. KAUFMAN INC., ETC. v. American MacH. & F'dry. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1968
  3. M. Dean Kaufman, Inc. v. American Machine & Foundry Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
  4. Towers v. DoroshawNew York Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Application of MartinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1954

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Coleman v. Dover CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
  2. Thompson Research Group, LLC v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2022
  3. Thompson Research Group, LLC v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API