Legal Opinion

Ratner v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided August 7, 1942PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRIGHT, District Judge.

The defendants, Paramount Pictures, Inc., Balaban, Keough, Callaghan, Harris, Zukor, Gibson, Agnew, Newton, Hicks and Weisl (the other defendants not having been served), move (1) under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for leave to serve a supplemental answer setting up as res judicata, a judgment entered in the New York Supreme Court, in a similar derivative stockholders’ action entitled Horn-stein v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., et al., Sup., 37 N.Y.S.2d 404, (2) under Rule 56 for summary judgment, and (3) in the event…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Reed v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Deposit Bank v. FrankfortSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  3. Parkhurst v. . BerdellNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
  4. Isaac v. MarcusNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  5. Dana v. MorganCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,038 Randolph Phillips v. John E. Tobin, Ralph K. Gottshall, and Alleghany CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
  2. United States v. United Air Lines, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 1962
  3. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,592 Paulette Papilsky v. Alvin H. Berndt, and Carl W. KnoblochCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
  4. Nathan v. RowanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
  5. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. PyottCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2012

10 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