Legal Opinion

OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Howell

District Court, D. Kansas

Decided September 8, 1994No. 93-4099-RDRPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROGERS, Senior District Judge.

This case is now before the court upon defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff in the case at bar was the defendant in the case of Manildra Milling Corporation v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc., Case No. 86-2457-S (“Manildra”). Manildra is a protracted, complex patent ease. Defendant in the case at bar was an expert witness for Manildra Milling Corporation in Manildra. The first trial of the Manildra ease ended in a mistrial. The mistrial was announced on the eighteenth day of trial. Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees pursuant to…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  4. Chiarella v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Miree v. DeKalb CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1977

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Scherer v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2003
  2. Weiss v. SawyerDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1997
  3. Brumit v. SummarCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API