Legal Opinion
Triangle Industries, Inc. v. Kennecott Copper Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 20, 1975No. 71 Civ. 1737, 71 Civ. 1736PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LASKER, District Judge.
Plaintiffs jointly move to file and serve amended and supplemental complaints. We treat below each proposed item of amendment or supplementation.
1. The amendment to specify that “Each of the defendants transacts business and is found in the Southern District of New York” is granted. While the defendants describe the amendment as “useless paper work since the point is undisputed,” it is not seriously opposed and there is no reason to deny the application.
2. The motion to delete references to American Smelting and Refining Company (Asarco) because both cases against…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Hawthorne v. Eckerson Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- Reading Industries, Inc. v. Kennecott Copper Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1974
- Mitchell v. RKO Rhode Island Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1956
3Cited by4 opinions
- Young v. Verson Allsteel Press Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
- DeAngelis v. Warner Lambert Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1986
- Dow Corning Corp. v. General Electric Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1978
- D'Antuano v. City of Niagara FallsDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1997