Legal Opinion
Mi-Lor Corp. v. Gottsegen (In Re Mi-Lor Corp.)
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided May 7, 1999No. 19-01006PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
JAMES F. QUEENAN, Bankruptcy Judge.
The Defendants have moved for summary judgment, primarily on the ground that all causes of action set forth in the complaint are barred by applicable statutes of limitation. On February 26, 1999 the court issued an order denying the motion and reserving jurisdiction to render a decision setting forth its reasons for the denial. Set forth here is that decision.
Mi-Lor Corporation (Mi-Lor) and Professional Brushes, Inc. (PBI) (collectively the Plaintiffs or the Debtors), filed their voluntary chapter 11 petitions on March 3, 1995 and March 7, 1995…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-RodriguezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
- Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- Moore v. BaySupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Klein v. CatalanoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Rund v. Bank of America Corp. (In re EPD Investment Co.)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Schnidt v. HSC, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2014
- Smith v. Cowden (In Re Cowden)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
- Sears Petroleum & Transport Corporation v. Burgess Construction Services, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2006
- Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. v. MAFCO Holdings, Inc. (In Re Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc.)District Court, D. Delaware · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.