Legal Opinion
Rogosin v. Steadman
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 5, 1976No. Nos. 69 Civ. 2277, 69 Civ. 2660PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
OWEN, District Judge.
In my memorandum and order of December 5, 1974, D.C., 65 F.R.D. 365, I ordered a hearing into certain allegations which arose from the motion of defendants Steadman Security Corporation and Steadman Corporation of America (hereinafter “Steadman”) to strike and/or dismiss the consolidated supplemental complaint as a sham and false for improper verification pursuant to Rule 11 of the Fed.R.Civ.P.
I concluded that a hearing was required under Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U.S. 363, 86 S.Ct. 845, 15 L.Ed.2d 807 (1966) to resolve the basic issues of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,592 Paulette Papilsky v. Alvin H. Berndt, and Carl W. KnoblochCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
- Shields v. Valley National BankDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1971
- Partridge v. St. Louis Joint Stock Land BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
- Rogosin v. SteadmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,484 John F. Maher v. Zapata Corporation v. William Maldonado, Objector-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
- Greenspan v. BrasslerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- In Re Fuqua Industries, Inc. Shareholder LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1999
- Kaplan v. PomerantzDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1990
- Brown v. Hart, Schaffner & MarxDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.