United States District Court, E. D. New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
May 1, 1980.
May 1, 1980.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Victor J. Yannacone, Jr., Yannacone & Yannacone, Patchogue, N. Y., Schlegel & Trafelet, Ltd., L. Steven Platt, Daniel C. Sullivan, Sullivan Associates, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., Hy Mayerson, Spring City, Pa., David Jaroslawicz, New York City, Newton B. Schwartz, P. C., Benton Musslewhite, Inc., Houston, Tex., Melvin Block, Brooklyn, N. Y., Marshall A. Bernstein, Bernstein, Bernstein & Harrison, Philadelphia, Pa., Louis B. Merhige, New Orleans, La., Dorothy Thompson, Los Angeles, Cal., W. T. McMillan, W. T. McMillan & Co., Associated Counsel for Australian plaintiffs, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, Jerry G. Wieslander, Frank G. Wieslander, Altoona, Iowa, Lewis A. Royal, Samuel Zelden, Des Moines, Iowa, David C. Anson, Deconcini, McDonald, Brammer, Yetwin & Lacy, Tucson, Ariz., Phillip E. Brown, Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & Molliga, San Francisco, Cal., Leslie Hulnick, Wichita, Kan., Sidney W. Gilreath, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiffs.
Leonard L. Rivkin, Rivkin, Leff & Sherman, Garden City, N. Y., Morton B. Silberman, Clark, Gagliardi & Miller, White Plains, N. Y., Roy L. Reardon, James P. Barrett and Michael V. Corrigan, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, Wendell B. Alcorn, Jr., Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Townley & Updike, Bud Holman and William Krohley, Kelley, Drye & Warren, New York City, William H. Sanders, William A. Lynch and Paul G. Lane, Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi, Kansas City, Mo., Baker & McKenzie, Chicago, Ill., John M. Fitzpatrick, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Levy & Kauffman, Philadelphia, Pa., Joan Bernott, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
United States District Court, E. D. New York.
GEORGE C. PRATT, District Judge.
The following orders are based on proceedings at the April 25, 1980 oral argument:
1. With the consent of all parties, the government's motion to dismiss the third-party complaints shall be deemed also to have been directed against the third party complaint of Hooker Chemical and Plastics Company served after the motion was made, and Hooker's "Memorandum of Points and Authorities" in opposition to the motion may be considered...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
