Legal Opinion
Varrone v. Bilotti
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided October 6, 1994No. 1:92-cr-01290PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
BARTELS, District Judge.
Defendant John Matthews moves this Court under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment. Plaintiff Anthony Varrone moves under Rule 15 for an order granting him leave to amend the complaint to name six additional known defendants and ten unidentified “John Doe” defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the plaintiffs motion to amend is granted.
BACKGROUND
At the time of the events precipitating this action, 1 Joseph Varrone was incarcerated at the Arthur…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wood v. MCC SuperintendantCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Varrone v. BilottiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Varrone v. BilottiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Scott v. CoughlinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Dow Corning Corp. v. Chemical Design, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.