Legal Opinion
New West Urban Renewal Co. v. Viacom, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided November 18, 2002No. Civil Action 01-707PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ORLOFSKY, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The law does not protect those who sleep on their rights. Here, Plaintiff, New West Urban Renewal Co. (“New West”), waited for at least seven years, and perhaps longer, before it sought damages for the environmental contamination of property that it purchased from Westinghouse, Inc. (“Westinghouse”), the predecessor-in-interest to the Defendant, Viacom, Inc. (“Viacom”). 1 Viacom now moves for partial summary judgment on all but the First and Fifth 2 Counts of the Complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. Whether these…
2Cases cited24 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
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Groman v. Township Of ManalapanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Blystra v. Fiber Tech Group, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2005
- DIRAUF v. BERGERDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2020
- Mareld Company, Inc. v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Company n/k/a Verizon New England Inc.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2018
- Morristown Associates v. Grant Oil Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2013