Pasternak v. Sagittarius Recording Co.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT BOOTH, LIPTON & LIPTON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM
COHN, District Judge.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and that Defendant Booth, Lipton & Lipton’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and that Booth, Lipton & Lipton and Third-Party Defendant Rose, Feldman, Radin, Pavone & Skehan are DISMISSED as defendants.
MEMORANDUM
I. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
A
Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of their…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- William Butler Smith v. Leman HudsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- Moning v. AlfonoMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
- LeDuc v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Hi-Way Motor Co. v. International Harvester Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1976
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pasternak v. Sagittarius Recording CoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
- Ackerman v. SchwartzDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1989
- Aerospace America, Inc. v. Abatement Technologies, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1990