Legal Opinion
Motorola, Inc. v. Varo, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided October 7, 1986No. Civ. A. 3-83-1056-TPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MALONEY, District Judge.
Third Party Defendant Philip A. Hunt Chemical Corporation (“Hunt”) has moved for reconsideration of the Court’s Amended Order of December 9, 1985, wherein it denied Hunt’s motion for summary judgment against Defendants, and Third Party Plaintiffs, Varo, Inc. and Varo Semiconductor, Inc. (“Varo”).
Third Party Defendant Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) has filed a motion for summary judgment against Varo.
Varo has responded and filed motions for sanctions against these Third Party Defendants under Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P. for filing, respectively, the motion for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Certainteed Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1986
3Cited by5 opinions
- Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. Suns Legacy Partners, LLCDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2013
- Construction Technology, Inc. v. Lockformer Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Public Varieties of Mississippi, Inc. v. Sun Valley Seed Co.District Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1990
- Chemtron, Inc. v. Aqua Products, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1993
- Lifescan, Inc. v. Can-Am Care Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1994