The CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, Plaintiff,
v.
PECK IRON & METAL CO., INC. et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
December 24, 1992.
December 24, 1992.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Richard Kent Bennett, Shawn Renea Urelius Jordanger, Betty Sinclaire Wommack, McSweeney, Burtch & Crump, Richmond, VA, for plaintiff.
Archibald Wallace, III, Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, Richmond, VA, for defendant Peanut City Iron & Metal, Inc.
Robert L. Harris, Jr., Hirschler, Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox & Allen, Richmond, VA, for defendant Goldsboro Iron & Metal Co.
A.J. Owings, Spinella, Owings & Shaia, Richmond, VA, for defendant Smith Iron & Metal Co., Inc.
John D. Epps, LeClair, Ryan, Joynes, Epps & Framme, Richmond, VA, for defendant Ramsey Iron & Metal, Inc.
W. Todd Benson, Press, Jones & Waechter, P.C., Richmond, VA, for defendant Phillip F. Gay, t/a Farmville Iron & Metal Co.
William Riley Marchant, Thorsen, Page & Marchant, Richmond, VA, for defendants Zacharias Bros., a Virginia General Partnership, Carol K. Zacharias, Edward A. Zacharias, Mary D. Zacharias, William K. Zacharias.
Susan Taylor Hansen, Cooper, Spong & Davis, Portsmouth, VA, for defendant Virginia Iron & Metal Co. of Portsmouth, Inc.
Joy J. Hatchette, Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, Baltimore, MD, for defendant Irving Hurwitz.
Madelaine Berg, Stroock, Stroock & Lavan, New York City, for defendant Peck Iron & Metal Co., Inc.
Winthrop A. Short, Jr., David Owens, Kaufman & Canoles, Norfolk, VA, for defendant Gutterman Iron & Metal Corp.
Patrick A. Genzler, Carter T. Gunn, Vandeventer, Black, Meredith & Martin, Norfolk, VA, for defendant Smith Iron & Metal Co., Inc.
United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on: 1) the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Joint and Several Liability; 2) the Zacharias Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; and 3) Defendant Phillip Gay's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion and imposes joint and several liability upon the defendants to this motion...
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.
