Legal Opinion
Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. v. Objective, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided June 14, 1999No. 97-2713PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MURNAGHAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge WIDENER and Judge HAMILTON joined.
OPINION
MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge:
Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. (“SATO”) and Objective: Inc. (“Objective”) agreed to produce a travel software system together.. After Objective ceased work on the project, SATO filed a complaint for breach of contract and breach of warranty against Objective. Objective filed an answer and six counterclaims. The district court granted SATO’s motion for summary judgment on four of the six counterclaims — namely, the claims alleging…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Gazette, Inc. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1985
- Paul Smith, an Individual v. Edward L. Montoro and Film Ventures International Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Norman P. Singer v. Thomas F. Dungan Benjamin Flammey the Cambridge Institute, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Energy Capital Corp. (As General Partner of Energy Capital Partners Limited Partnership) v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- DRC Parts & Accessories, L.L.C. v. VM Motori, S.P.A., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2003
- Gross v. WeingartenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2000
- Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AGDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2001
- FRANSMART, LLC v. Freshii Development, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2011
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.