Legal Opinion

Katz v. Dansker

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided December 8, 1980No. MDL No. 290; Nos. 76 Civ. 4721(WCC), 77 Civ. 616(WCC), 78 Civ. 268(WCC) and 78 Civ. 532(WCC)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

CONNER, District Judge:

Before the Court are motions by defendants Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (“PMM”) and Ernst & Whinney, as successor to S. D. Leidesdorf & Co. (“Leidesdorf”) for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., or alternatively to dismiss the complaint, Rule 12(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P. (“motions to dismiss”) in the four abovesubcaptioned cases (“Katz,” “Rochchild,” “Metrick” and “Haber”). In his Report Number 21 (“Report”), Magistrate Harold J. Raby recommends the granting of Leidesdorf’s motion as to Katz, Rothchild, Metrick and Haber, the granting of PMM’s…

2Cases cited21 opinions

United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
Aldinger v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952

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

3Cited by1 opinion

In Re Investors Funding Corp. of Ny SEC. Lit.District Court, S.D. New York · 1980