Legal Opinion
Rush v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 8, 1988No. 84 Civ. 3219 (RWS)PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendants Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (“Oppenheimer”) and Scott Seskis (“Sesk-is”) (together, “Oppenheimer”) have moved for an order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) setting aside the jury verdict received January 21, 1988 and compelling arbitration of all of plaintiff R. Stockton Rush’s (“Rush”) claims. In the alternative, defendants have moved for an order granting a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a) or for an order staying these proceedings pending appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Upon the findings and conclusions set forth below, the motion for judgment…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.California Supreme Court · 1996
- Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Campaniello Imports, Ltd. v. Saporiti Italia S.p.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Campaniello Imports, Ltd. v. Saporiti Italia S.P.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Henneberry v. Sumitomo Corp. of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2007
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.