Legal Opinion

Olejar v. Powermatic Division of DeVlieg-Bullard, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 18, 1992No. 92-0150PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HUTTON, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are defendants Powermatic Division of DeVlieg-Bullard, Inc. (correctly styled) (“Powermatic”), Houdaille Industries, Inc. (“Houdaille”), John Crane, Inc. (“John Crane”) and T.I. United States Limited’s (“T.I.”) Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated September 19, 1992, or for Immediate Certification for Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and plaintiff Christopher Olejar’s response thereto. For the following reasons, defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration or for Immediate Certification for Appeal is DENIED.

I.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Ray v. Alad Corp.California Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Mary Hopper v. Euclid Manor Nursing Home, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
  5. Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1981

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Morgan v. Havir Manufacturing Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Gower v. Savage Arms, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Lacy v. Carrier Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Dale v. Webb Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Federal Insurance v. Glenn D. Livelsberger, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1994

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