Legal Opinion
VOLASCO PRODUCTS COMPANY v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Decided June 19, 1963No. Civ. A. 3525PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROBERT L. TAYLOR, Chief Judge.
On May 8, 1963 the Court entered an order which; among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. Subsequently on May 21, the plaintiff filed a motion with the Court to reconsider its action in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. The propriety of the motion has been thoroughly briefed by both sides.
In its memorandum in support of the order denying leave to file a supplemental complaint, the Court gave as a reason that there would be a hiatus of a year between the recovery period allowable…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. American Bowling & Billiard Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Proper v. John Bene & Sons, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1923
- International Tag & Salesbook Co. v. American Salesbook Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1943
- New Jersey Wood Finishing Co. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1963
- Federal, Trade Commission v. Baltimore Paint & Color Works, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Farmington Dowel Products Co. v. Forster Mfg. Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1970
- Highland Supply Corporation v. Reynolds Metals Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1964
- New Jersey Wood Finishing Company v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, and Essexwire Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1964
- Laitram Corporation v. Deepsouth Packing CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1968
- Lippa's, Inc. v. Lenox, IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 1969
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.