Legal Opinion
Con-Tech Sales Defined Benefit Trust v. Cockerham
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 1, 1989No. Civ. A. 87-5137PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
VAN ANTWERPEN, Judge.
This action arises out of the alleged disposal of hazardous wastes on property now owned by plaintiffs (“Con-Tech”). In the instant matter, third-party defendant Hough/Loew Associates (“Hough/Loew”) moves to dismiss the third-party complaint of defendants Richard Hannig and Louis Palitz, trading as Hannig & Rudolph (“Rudolph”). For the reasons stated below, we will deny the motion.
Background
According to Con-Tech’s second amended complaint, in 1986, Con-Tech purchased from Rudolph a parcel of land in Chester County. The land is now identified as Whiteland…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Colburn v. Upper Darby TownshipCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- ESTATE OFCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Otto T. Schwab v. Erie Lackawanna Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. Pretty Products, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1991
- Ronson v. TalesnickDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1999
- Lentz v. MasonDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
- Morris v. LenihanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. FarmerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.