Legal Opinion
General Environmental Science Corp. v. Horsfall
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided December 12, 1990No. 1:90 CV 1340PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BATTISTI, District Judge.
Before the court is Defendants Biosys Corporation (“Biosys”) and Gustavo Gys-ler’s multi-pronged motion to dismiss the instant action, and Defendant Frank L. Horsfall’s motion to apply the law of Switzerland. For the reasons stated herein, the motion to dismiss is DENIED, and the motion to apply the law of Switzerland is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. FACTS
On July 27, 1990, Plaintiff, General Environmental Science Corporation (“GES”), filed an eighteen count complaint against Defendants Biosys, Gysler, Horsfall, and John L. Strauss (collectively the…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- George Lambert, D/B/A Rainbow Fruit v. Sam Kysar and Joan Kysar, D/B/A Lewis River Tree FarmCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Authority, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Terra International, Inc. v. Mississippi Chemical Corp.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1996
- Warnaco Inc. v. VF Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1994
- In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2013
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.