Legal Opinion
NATARE CORPORATION v. Aquatic Renovation Systems, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Indiana
Decided May 26, 2000No. IP 95-145-C-B/SPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
BARKER, Chief Judge.
On December 4, 1997, we held that the parties in this ease were bound by a settle ment agreement reached on May 15,1997. 1 Pursuant to that ruling, on January 7, 1998 we entered an Order of Judgment that incorporated the terms of the agreement. In November of 1998 we denied a motion of Defendants, Aquatic Renovation Systems, Inc. (d/b/a A.R.S., Inc., and as “RenoSys”) and Stewart J. “Jason” Mart (collectively, “ARS”) for sanctions for contempt of the Court’s Order against Plaintiff Natare Corporation (“Natare”) alleging that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- 3D Systems, Inc. v. Aarotech Laboratories, Inc., Aaroflex, Inc. And Albert C. YoungCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. And Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendants/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Stotler and Company, Cross-Appellee v. William J. Able, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, LLCDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1999
- Cognitronics Imaging Systems, Inc. v. Recognition Research Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Star Scientific Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 2001
- Fieldturf International, Inc. v. Sprinturf, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2004
- City of Aurora Ex Rel. Aurora Water v. PS Systems, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 2010