Legal Opinion
Piezo Crystal Co. v. Uddeholm Corp.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided August 18, 1994No. Civ. 91-0938PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
VANASKIE, District Judge.
In its amended complaint, filed on February 10, 1992 (Dkt. Entry # 15), Piezo Crystal Company (hereafter “Piezo”) asserted contract and fraud claims in relation to its purchase of steel for use in its production of precision timing devices. Jurisdiction exists based upon diversity of citizenship.
On October 7, 1993, defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims asserted in the amended complaint. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Piezo manufactures precision timing devices for use in…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Armbruster v. Unisys Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sunquest Information Systems, Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
- Paper Manufacturers Co. v. Rescuers, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1999
- Shepard v. KempDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
- Busy Bee Inc. v. Corestates Bank N.A., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2004
- Aryzta LLC v. Gottstein CorporationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.