Legal Opinion
Glynwed, Inc. v. Plastimatic, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided November 9, 1994No. Civ. A. 92-1500 (WGB)PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BASSLER, District Judge:
Plaintiff Glynwed, Inc. (“Glynwed”) and defendant Danco/Plastock, Inc. (“Danco/Plastoek”) have filed cross-motions for summary judgement. Glynwed seeks a determination that Danco/Plastock is the corporate successor of defendants Plastimatic, Inc. (“Plastimatic”) and Danco Products, Inc. (“Danco”). Danco/Plastock argues that it cannot, as a matter of law, be the corporate successor of those corporations. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Danco/Plastock is the corporate successor of Plastimatic and Danco.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
This action arises…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Golden State Bottling Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Berg Chilling Systems, Inc. v. Hull Corporation Sp Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
- Cargo Partner Ag v. Albatrans, Inc. And Chase, Leavitt (Customhouse Brokers) Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Ed Peters Jewelry Co. v. C & J Jewelry Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
- Continental Insurance v. Schneider, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2013
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.