Legal Opinion
Farr v. Designer Phosphate & Premix International, Inc.
District Court, D. Nebraska
Decided October 9, 1992No. 8:cv91-666PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KOPF, District Judge.
Some of the defendants (Kumm, Bach, Kaiser, Kellner, and Vavrina) (sometimes referred to as the “moving defendants”) have moved (Vol. 5, filing 43) to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, contending that statutes of limitations bar the assertions in count II and count- IV of the second amended complaint (Vol. 5, filing 20). I shall deny the motion as it regards count II, but grant the motion as it regards count IV. 1
I. Procedural and Factual Background
A
This case was started in the United States District Court for the District of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. HeimanSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. GilbertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Schiavone v. FortuneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Morgan Distributing Company, Inc. v. Unidynamic Corporation (Formerly Known as Umc Industries, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., Investment LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2007
- Butler v. Bantz (In re Howe Grain, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska · 1994
- Zierke v. MolsenDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 2022