Legal Opinion
Cheng v. GAF Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 14, 1982No. 77 Civ. 3159PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
OWEN, District Judge.
Before me are three motions by defendant GAF Corporation. In the first, GAF seeks to amend its answer to assert that the various applicable statutes of limitations bar all of plaintiff’s claims. In the second, GAF seeks summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 as to various aspects of plaintiff’s claims in this discrimination action. GAF’s third motion is for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for allegedly frivolous proceedings by the plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and this Court following an adverse…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United Air Lines, Inc. v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. RisjordSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Shirley C. Shehadeh v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1978
- Henry Carl DEAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- James K.J. Cheng v. Gaf CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- State v. RossSupreme Court of Missouri · 1992
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- James K.J. Cheng v. Gaf CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Cobb Publishing, Inc. v. Hearst Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.