Legal Opinion

Larson v. General Motors Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided December 20, 1941PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEIBELL, District Judge.

Defendant moves under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for a summary judgment in its favor dismissing plaintiffs’ second cause of action on the ground that there is no genuine issue of a material fact and that all the material facts were adjudicated adversely to the plaintiff in the *295trial of plaintiffs’ first cause of action and of defendant’s counterclaim thereto.

The complaint originally stated two causes of action. The first cause of action was based upon an alleged infringement of a patent relating to an automobile body…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Southern Pacific Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  2. Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B. & C. Nieberg Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
  3. Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
  4. Moore v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
  5. Vapor Car Heating Co. v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Larson v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  2. De Filippis v. Chrysler CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1944
  3. Great Lakes Carbon Corporation v. Continental Oil CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1963
  4. Robine v. Apco, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1964
  5. Magrath v. Draper Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1967

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

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

Powered by the Exa API