Legal Opinion
American Optical Co. v. Curtiss
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 4, 1971No. 65 Civ. 627PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RYAN District Judge.
Defendants move for summary judgment under Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., on the ground that plaintiff is not the real party in interest. [Rule 17(a), F.R.Civ.P.]
Defendants contend that plaintiff’s only right to maintain this action is derived from an assignment which was illegal and void under Michigan Law and under Section 275 of the New York Penal Law, McKinney’s Consol.Laws, c. 40. I have concluded to grant defendants’ motion unless the University of Michigan (“the University”), the real party in interest, is joined or substituted as the party plaintiff.
This…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Loucks v. . Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Auten v. AutenNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Intercontinental Planning, Ltd. v. Daystrom Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc. And John KeatsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Capital Nat. Bank of New York v. McDonald's Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1986
- Daniels v. PowellDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1985
- B.R.I. Coverage Corp. v. Air CanadaDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1989
- Refac International, Ltd. v. Lotus Development Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Republic of PeruDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.