Legal Opinion
Novak v. Seiko Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 16, 2002No. 01-35002; D.C. No. CV 99-1022-MAPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The panel hereby withdraws the memorandum disposition filed on April 17, 2002. It files a new memorandum disposition contemporaneous with this order.
The petition for rehearing is denied. No further petition will be entertained.
MEMORANDUM *
Mickey Novak appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants Seiko Corporation (SC), Seiko Instruments, Inc. (SII), Seiko Epson Corporation (SE), and Time Tech, Inc. (TT). Novak claims he is entitled to compensation for introducing the Seiko family of companies to Nike Corporation. Novak bases his claims on theories of implied…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1JOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Riley Hill General Contractor, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of BronsonOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- Derenco, Inc. v. Benj. Franklin Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Colacurcio v. City of KentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems, Inc. v. United States Postal ServiceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems, Inc. v. United States Postal ServiceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011