Legal Opinion
Conte v. Justice
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 1, 1992No. 90 Civ. 4673 (SWK)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KRAM, District Judge.
In this diversity action, plaintiffs Kenneth and Laura Conte (the “Contes”) seek to recover damages for personal injuries which they allegedly suffered in an automobile accident. Defendant Karen Justice (“Justice”) moves, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order granting her summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that the Contes are collaterally estopped from litigating the issue of liability for their personal injuries as that issue was already conclusively determined in prior state court…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Richardson v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
- Richardson v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996