Legal Opinion
Louis R. Piccolo and Nancy M. Piccolo v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided February 25, 1981No. 80-1911PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Per curiam
Louis R. and Nancy M. Piccolo (the Piccolos) brought this action pro se in federal district court under the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14 (1976), to vacate an arbitration award favorable to Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc. (DKQ). DKQ moved for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court 1 referred the motion to a magistrate, who made findings and recommended to the court that the Piccolos’ complaint be dismissed as untimely. The district court adopted the magistrate’s findings and recommendations in their entirety…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Michael Holodnak v. Avco Corporation, Avco-Lycoming Division, Stratford, Connecticut,defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Holodnak v. AVCO CORP., AVCO-LYCOMING D., STRATFORD, CONN.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1974
- Hill v. Aro CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1967
- DeLorto v. United Parcel Service, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1975
3Cited by30 opinions
- George Corey, Trust Fund v. New York Stock ExchangeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
- Taylor v. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
- Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. U.S. Phone Manufacturing Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2005
- Domino Group, Inc. v. Charlie Parker Memorial FoundationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- Eurocapital Group Ltd. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2000
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.