Legal Opinion

Purofied Down Products Corp. v. Royal Down Products, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Decided August 21, 1980No. G77-312 CA1PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

DOUGLAS W. HILLMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a New York supplier of processed goose down and feathers, brings suit against defendant, a Michigan manufacturer of down-filled products, for recovery of the contract price of goose down and feathers shipped by plaintiff to defendant in 1976 and 1977. Defendant has counterclaimed for damages alleged to have resulted from defects in the material shipped by plaintiff.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment of its claim under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 alleging that it is *687entitled to judgment as a matter of law in…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. American Electric Power Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1976
  2. Jurek v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  3. Hussey Metals Division of Copper Range Co. v. Lectromelt Furnace Division, McGraw Edison Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Detroit & Northern Savings & Loan Ass'n v. WoodworthMichigan Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. Juleah Co. v. Inc. Village of RoslynNew York Court of Appeals · 1978

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1988
  2. Intervale Steel v. Borg & Beck Div., Borg-WarnerDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1984
  3. RPJ Sportswear, Inc. v. Xylo Tex, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1988
  4. Pacific Western Resin Co. v. Condux Pipe Systems, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 1991
  5. RowVaughn Wells, individually and as Administratrix ad Litem of the Estate of Tyre Deandre Nichols, deceased v. The City of Memphis, a municipality, et al.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API