Legal Opinion
Abraham v. Raso
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 20, 1998No. Civil Action 96-4884(JEI), 96-5146(JEI)Published
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
IRENAS, District Judge.
Presently before this Court is defendant Macy’s East, Inc’s (“Macy’s”) motion for summary judgment as to Kimberly Raso’s and her husband Joris Hoogendoorn’s (collectively, “Raso”) negligence claims against Macy’s. 1 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. For the reasons stated below, this Court will grant Macy’s motion and dismiss Raso’s complaint against Macy’s.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts in this case were set forth in detail in this Court’s March 5, 1998 Opinion in the above captioned consolidated actions. Only a summary is required here.
On…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of City of NewarkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1962
- Vera L. POLLOCK, Appellant, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH LONG LINESCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.