Legal Opinion
Lund v. Chemical Bank
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 6, 1987No. 84 Civ. 1621 (RWS)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SWEET, District Judge.
In this action to recover the face amount of three checks which plaintiffs claim were paid over forged endorsements, third-party defendant Laidlaw Adams & Peck, Inc. (“Laidlaw”) has moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Russell T. Lund, Jr. (“Lund”), Lund’s, Inc. (“Lund’s, Inc.”) and Wardwell M. Montgomery (“Montgomery”) have cross-moved for summary judgment, as has defendant and third-party plaintiff Chemical Bank (“Chemical”).
For the following reasons, the motions for summary judgment are granted in part and denied in part, Chemical’s motion is denied, and the…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Bartle v. Home Owners Cooperative, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1955
- Cooper v. Union BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Burks Drywall, Inc. v. Washington Bank & Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1982
- Grannis v. . StevensNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lund v. Chemical BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Lund v. Chemical BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
- Lund's, Inc. v. Chemical BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
- Charmglow Products, Inc. v. Mitchell Street State BankDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1988
- Lund v. Chemical BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.