Legal Opinion

Crum v. Colman-Cocker Textile MacHinery Co.

District Court, E.D. Tennessee

Decided July 11, 1978No. CIV-2-77-142PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

A United States magistrate of this district recommended that the motion herein of the third-party defendant Formex Company (Formex) for a summary judgment as to the claim of the third-party plaintiff Colman-Cocker Textile Machinery Company, (Colman-Cocker), Rule 56(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Colman-Cocker served and filed timely written objection to such' recommendation, and the undersigned judge considers de novo that portion of the recommendation to which objection was made. 28 U.S.C. §…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Price v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Browder v. PettigrewTennessee Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Cordovan Associates, Incorporated v. Dayton Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
  5. Kroger Company v. GiemTennessee Supreme Court · 1964

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Williams v. White Mountain Construction Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  2. Elliott Crane Service, Inc. v. H.G. Hill Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1992
  3. Beloit Power Systems, Inc. v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.District Court, Virgin Islands · 1983
  4. Williams v. White Mountain Construction Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API