Legal Opinion
Fonar Corp. v. Magnetic Resonance Plus, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 13, 1997No. 93 Civ. 2220 (CBM)PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MOTLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Fonar Corporation (“Fonar”) makes this motion for (1) judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), or, in the alternative, for (2) a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(e), or (3) other relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). For the reasons explored below, this motion is granted in part and denied in part as to Rule 50(b) and granted in part as to Rule 59. The court does not address the motion pursuant to Rule 60(b).
BACKGROUND
Fonar is a manufacturer and seller of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (“MRI”) parts and equipment. Fonar also services its own…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Samuel S. SONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IVES LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Metromedia Co. v. FugazyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- NBT Bancorp Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Helen A. PENA, Appellee, v. BRATTLEBORO RETREAT, AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Carvel Corp. v. NoonanNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- B & M Linen, Corp. v. Kannegiesser, USA, Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- PICCOLI A/S v. Calvin Klein Jeanswear Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Bertuglia v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Lan Sang v. Ming HaiDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.