Legal Opinion

Borock v. Comerica Bank-Detroit

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided August 30, 1996No. 2:94-cv-70169PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

FEIKENS, District Judge.

Defendants Comerica and Provost have filed new motions for summary judgment in this lender liability law suit. In my April 4, 1996 opinion, I granted their motions for summary judgment on all claims except Plaintiffs claims for breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants now attack this claim by arguing that it is barred by the statute of limitations. I grant the motion of Defendant Provost and deny the motion of Defendant Comerica.

I. Background 1

Plaintiff, the bankruptcy trustee for the Sardo Corporation (“Sardo”), claims that Defendants Provost and Comerica…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
  5. Renda v. International Union, UAWMichigan Supreme Court · 1962

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Limor v. Buerger (In Re Del-Met Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2005
  2. United States v. Quicken Loans Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2017
  3. Gould, Inc. v. a & M Battery and Tire ServiceDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Ventura v. Cincinnati EnquirerDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API