1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 81 F.3d
  5. 81 F.3d 355 (1996)
 

RYAN OPERATIONS G.P. v. SANTIAM-MIDWEST LUMBER CO.

No. 95-3250.

81 F.3d 355 (1996)

RYAN OPERATIONS G.P., a Virginia General Partnership and NVR, L.P., a Virginia Limited Partnership, on Behalf of its Division, NVR Building Products Co. v. SANTIAM-MIDWEST LUMBER CO., an Oregon Corporation; Furman Lumber, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation; Bright Wood Corp., an Oregon Corporation. BRIGHT WOOD CORP., Third Party Plaintiff, v. FORREST PAINT CO., INC., an Oregon Corporation; Guardsman Products, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Third Party Defendants, Ryan Operations G.P. and NVR, L.P. and its division, NVR Building Products Co., Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Decided April 15, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert B. Cave, David G. Leitch(argued), Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC, Richard F. Rinaldo, Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellants Ryan Operations G.P.; NVR LP, and its Division NVR Building Products Co.

Stephen J. Poljak, Anstandig, Levicoff, McDyer, Burdette & Yurcas, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellees Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co.

Louis C. Long, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Beberick & Eck, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellees Furman Lumber Inc.

Louis C. Long, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Beberick & Eck, Pittsburgh, PA, Michael K. Atkinson, Thomas M. Buchanan, Michael L. Sibarium (argued), Winston & Strawn, Washington, DC, for Third Party Plaintiff Bright Wood Corp.

Randy K. Hareza, Burns, White & Hickton, Pittsburgh, PA, for Third Party Defendant Forrest Paint Co. Inc.

Norbert F. Kugele, Warner, Norcross & Judd, Grand Rapids, MI, for Third Party Defendant Guardsman Products Inc.

Before SLOVITER, Chief Judge, STAPLETON and SAROKIN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SAROKIN, Circuit Judge:

This case raises issues concerning the application and scope of the doctrine of judicial estoppel. The district court, upon recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the theory that plaintiff, having failed to disclose its claims against defendants as a contingent asset in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, was judicially estopped from seeking to...

NEVER MISS A DECISION. START YOUR SUBSCRIPTION.

Uncompromising quality. Enduring impact.
Your support ensures a bright future for independent legal reporting.

As you are aware we have offered this as a free subscription over the past years and we have now made it a paid service.Look forward to your continued patronage.

GET STARTED
OR

Read it with your Leagle account.
Sign in to continue


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