Legal Opinion
Mikropul Corp. v. Desimone & Chaplin-Airtech, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 28, 1984No. 83 Civ. 8445 (RWS)PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
This diversity action arises from contractual disputes surrounding the construction of an air pollution control facility at United States Steel’s (“USS”) Fairless, Pennsylvania plant. Defendants Vincent DeSimone (“DeSimone”) and James Chaplin (“Chaplin”), doing business as DeSimone, Chaplin and Associates (“DSC”), have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 56 dismissing that portion of Mikropol’s (“Mikropol”) fourth and fifth causes of action that seeks recovery of money for an alleged failure of DSC to design piles for tension and also, separately,…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Annette Heyman v. Commerce and Industry Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Babcock v. JacksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Sofi Classic S.A. de C.V. v. HurowitzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- David B. Lilly Co. v. FisherCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Rosenberg v. Pillsbury Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1989
- First City National Bank & Trust Co. v. Federal Deposit InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1990
- Morin v. TrupinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1990
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.