Legal Opinion

Antonious v. Muhammad

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 26, 2000No. 91 CIV. 2899(JES)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SPRIZZO, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiffs Nashaat N. Antonious and So-heri F. Antonious (“plaintiffs”) bring the above-captioned action against the remaining defendants in this action, Dawud Muhammad and Goldome Bank (“defendants” or “remaining defendants”), alleging claims based on false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress and various civil rights violations. Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs’ complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. For the reasons stated below,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
  3. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Antonious v. MuhammadCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API