Legal Opinion
Inofast Manufacturing, Inc. v. Bardsley
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 29, 2000No. 2:99-cv-06341PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDÉR
JOYNER, District Judge.
This case has been brought before the Court on motion of the defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations and by the principles of res judicata. For the reasons set forth in the paragraphs which follow, the motion shall be granted and Plaintiffs complaint dismissed with prejudice.
History of the Case
According to the plaintiffs Complaint, “the central and material issue in this case is the disputed validity of 12,857.143 shares of Inofast stock” issued to…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Brown v. FelsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Tobye R. Markowitz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Northeast Land Company. Appeal of Tobye R. MarkowitzCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Gregory v. ChehiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Brody v. HankinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2004
- Mohammed v. May Department Stores, Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 2003
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London that Subscribe to Certificate No. B1234HISINC2023, as Subrogee of H.C. Pody Company v. IAG Construction, Inc. and Pennoni Associates, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
- Charles Talbert v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2026