1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 807 F.Supp.
  5. 807 F.Supp. 65 (1992)
 

ARMCO v. BURNS & McDONNELL, INC.

Case No. C-1-90-766.

807 F.Supp. 65 (1992)

ARMCO, INC., Plaintiff, v. BURNS & McDONNELL, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio.

September 23, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mark Alan Vander Laan, Dinsmore & Shohl, Cincinnati, Ohio and Philipp B. Konrad Knake, Jr., New York City, for plaintiff/counterdefendant.

James Eugene Burke, Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Cincinnati, Ohio, Randall E. Hendricks, Kansas City, Mo., and Robert Gerard Sanker, and James Eugene Burke, Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant/counterclaimant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM

SPIEGEL, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Defendant's counterclaim (doc. 20), the Defendant's Response (doc. 28), and the Plaintiff's Reply (doc. 33).

Although the facts of this commercial dispute are relatively complex, the legal issue before the Court presents a straightforward application of...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases