Legal Opinion
Goodman v. DeAzoulay
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 11, 1983No. Civ. A. 81-2550PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
SHAPIRO, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this action Faye Goodman (“Goodman”) and Thelma Makavitt (“Makavitt”) claim damages from Daniel DeAzoulay (“DeAzoulay”) and Michael Levin (“Levin”) arising out of their investment for the proposed development of real estate. They allege that defendants conspired to defraud them of the funds they invested by misrepresenting defendants’ professional experience, past projects and future prospects, and the projected return from their real estate investments in Margate, New Jersey and Florida (First Amended Complaint ¶ 10, ¶ 20).
Plaintif…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Rosado v. WymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Aldinger v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. FormanSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Daniel Cowin v. Charles S. BreslerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Pell v. WeinsteinDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- McQuilken v. a & R DEVELOPMENT CORP.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
- Price v. Tempo, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1985
- Anastasi v. American Petroleum, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.