Legal Opinion
United States Shoe Corp. v. Hackett
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Decided January 15, 1985No. 84-C-0176PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CASE STATEMENT
WARREN, District Judge.
This is a collection action based on diversity jurisdiction. Defendants responded to plaintiff’s complaint by moving to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiff resisted and by cross-motion seeks summary judgment. Both sides have filed extensive briefs and affidavits, and the Court has heard oral argument. Furthermore, since one of defendants’ business entities, G.I. Corporation, Inc., formerly Graebels, Inc., has filed a petition under Chapter…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Essex International, Inc., a Michigan Corporation v. Earl A. ClamageCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1971
- D. N. & E. Walter & Co. v. ZuckermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Teledyne Mid-America Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Hoh Corporation, a Hawaii CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- Bernardi Bros., Inc. v. Great Lakes Distributing Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Peara v. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- The United States Shoe Corporation v. Patrick A. Hackett and Rosemary H. HackettCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Gritz Harvestore, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. v. L.H. Gruetzmacher, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Bank of New England, N.A. v. KleinDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1988