Legal Opinion
David v. Bauman
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 3, 1960PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBernard S. Meyer, J.
The question presented by this omnibus motion is whether after plaintiffs in this action (Action No. 1) have been granted summary judgment and a. date has been set for assessment of damages, the plaintiffs in another action (Action No. 2) against a common defendant growing out of the *68same accident should be permitted to intervene, or a joint trial or consolidation of the two cases be ordered, or the court’s equity powers used to stay the assessment until the other action has been brought to judgment. Movants are the plaintiffs in Action No. 2. Their motion for summary judgment in that action…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bartlett v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Bruyette v. SandiniMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Bleimeyer v. Public Service Mutual Casualty InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Stolove v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1935
- Pisciotta v. PrestonNew York Supreme Court · 1938
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Oliver Davis and Lillie Mae DavisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- In Re Enron Corp. Securities, DerivativeDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2005
- Duprey v. Security Mutual Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
- In Re September 11 Property Damage LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
- Clougherty v. Royal Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1967
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.