Legal Opinion
Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Elshazly
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided January 4, 1991No. Civ. No. B-89-410 (WWE)PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EGINTON, District Judge.
FACTS
Plaintiff, Marine Midland Bank, (“Bank”) has filed a motion for summary judgment on the First Count of its Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In 1984, Riverside Oil Company, Inc., (“Riverside”), not a party to this action, executed a variable rate installment note, payable to the Bank in the principal amount of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) and entered into an installment loan agreement. The loan agreement contained terms and conditions by which the note was to be governed including…
2Cases cited11 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
- American International Group, Inc. v. London American International Corporation Limited and Midland Bank LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- In Re the Arbitration Between Level Export Corp. & Wolz, Aiken & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1953
- M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. v. AustinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1977
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Big Pines v. BakerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2021