Legal Opinion
Barsam v. Pure Tech International, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 14, 1994No. 93 Civ. 3387 (MBM)PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
MUKASEY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Vartkes Barsam, George Chamchikian, Elkay Investments, Cornell J. Lazar, Burton Saltzman, Soonja Sue Enterprises, John J. Parven, John N. Parven, Rita Parven, and Parkra Investments, Inc. (collectively “plaintiffs”) sue defendants Pure Tech International, Inc., Yitz Grossman, and Werner Haase under RICO and state law. Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, fraudulent inducement of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, improper termination of preemptive rights and related claims arising out of various alleged wrongdoings. Plaintiffs ask also…
2Cases cited72 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Rini v. ZwirnDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1995
- Mathon v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.District Court, E.D. New York · 1995
- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2007
- Old Republic Insurance v. Hansa World Cargo Service, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Braune v. Abbott LaboratoriesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1995
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.