Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. Odif Podell, & Eon Corp. & Kerns Mfg. Corp., 546 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. Odif Podell, & Eon Corp. & Kerns Mfg. Corp., 546 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Peterick v. State (washctapp, 1978-12-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Peterick v. State
Wash. Ct. App. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
Co., 79 Wn.2d 745, 753 , 489 P.2d 923 (1971); see Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. Eon Corp., 401 F. Supp. 729, 736-37 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), aff'd, 546 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1976); Cahill v. Hawaiian Paradise Park Corp., 56 Haw. 522 , 543 P.2d 1356, 1360 (1975).
discussed Cited "see" Government of India v. Cargill, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
Furthermore, “[s]ummary judgment is apt to be inappropriate in an action based on a complex scheme of fraud where the court is asked to decide the motion on lengthy affidavits and documents and voluminous depositions.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.17[27], at 56-866; see Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Eon Corp., 373 F.Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff’d, 546 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bowling v. Ansted Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc.
W. Va. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. Eon Corp., 401 F.Supp. 729 (S.D.N.Y.1975), aff’d sub nom., Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. Podell, 546 F.2d 495 (2d Cir.1976) (applying California law); Crigler v. Salac, supra; T.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In the Matter of NEWPORT HARBOR ASSOCIATES, D/B/A Newport Harbor Treadway, Inc., Etc. and James W. Kirby, Etc., Debtors, Appellants
1st Cir. · 1978 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Eon Corp., S.D.N.Y., 1975, 401 F.Supp. 729 , aff’d mem., 2 Cir., 1976, 546 F.2d 495 ; Seedman v. Friedman, 2 Cir., 1942, 132 F.2d 290 with Miller v. Meinhard-Commercial Corp., 5 Cir., 1972, 462 F.2d 358 ; American Guaranty Corp. v. United States, 1968, 401 F.2d 1004 , 185 Ct.Cl. 502 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Teledyne Industries, Inc.
v.
Odif Podell, and Eon Corporation and Kerns Manufacturing Corp.
505.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 6, 1976.
546 F.2d 495
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

546 F.2d 495

TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Odif PODELL et al., Defendants-Appellants,
and
Eon Corporation and Kerns Manufacturing Corp., Defendants.

Nos. 504, 505, Dockets 75-7518, 75-7679.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 18, 1976.
Decided Dec. 6, 1976.

C. MacNeil Mitchell, New York City (Breed, Abbott & Morgan, New York City, Stephen R. Lang, George F. Vary, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Robert R. MacDonnell, New York City (Trubin Sillcocks Edelman & Knapp, New York City), for defendants-appellants.

Before WATERMAN, FRIENDLY and MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

On this appeal from a judgment against the defendants-appellants for money damages, we affirm on the opinion of Hon. Whitman Knapp, United States District Court Judge, Southern District of New York, reported at 401 F.Supp. 729 (S.D.N.Y.1975).[*] The appellants also appeal from Judge Knapp's order denying a new trial on the alleged ground of newly discovered evidence. The order is affirmed as we find that appeal to be totally without merit and frivolous. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1912 and Fed.R.App.P. 38, we assess the appellants double costs and, in addition, $1,500 in attorneys' fees.

*

See also Judge Bauman's opinion on a motion for summary judgment in this case, 373 F.Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y.1974)