Resolution Trust Corp. v. S & K CHEVROLET CO.
District Court, C.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
McDADE, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Randy Rei-man’s Clarification to the Court [Doc. # 143]. In its previous Order of February 28, 1996, the Court held that Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim in Count I should be dismissed on the basis that “RTC stepped into the shoes of a defunct corporation without any right to punitive damages.” See O’Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., — U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 2048, 2054, 129 L.Ed.2d 67 (1994). In arriving at this conclusion, the Court noted its reliance upon Reiman’s factual assertion on page five of his motion to dismiss…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. LiebertDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1994
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. S & K CHEVROLETDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 1994
3Cited by3 opinions
- Amsterdam Tobacco Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- General Motors Corp. v. Ignacio Lopez De ArriortuaDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1996
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. CameronDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2013