Legal Opinion

Medtronic, Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc.

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided May 3, 1995No. CIV-4-93-626PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

NOEL, United States Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER came before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on the 30th of January, 1995 for a hearing on plaintiffs motion to compel testimony and production of documents regarding defendant Intermedies’ interpretation and understanding of a 1988 settlement agreement.

I. The Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff Medtronic (“Medtronic”) asserts that defendant Intermedies (“Intermedies”) has, through its pleadings, put its interpretation and understanding of a 1988 Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) between the parties at issue. However, Intermedies has refused to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hearn v. RhayDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1975
  2. Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. MestreDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1980
  3. Bieter Co. v. BlomquistDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1994

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  2. Harter v. University of IndianapolisDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 1998
  3. Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLCDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2012
  4. Union County v. Piper Jaffray & Co.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 2008
  5. Stovall v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009

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

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

Powered by the Exa API