· 8/24/1984
Cincinnati Milacron Industries, Inc. v. Aqua Dyne, Inc.
Citations
- 592 F. Supp. 1113
- 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24123
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that Rule 13(a) did not permit the filing of a compulsory counterclaim against Cincinnati Milacron Industries, Inc. because it was not a party to the litigation against Milacron Marketing Company, a separate corporate entity from Cincinnati Milacron Industries, Inc.
- finding that Rule 13(a) did not permit the filing of a compulsory counterclaim against Cincinnati Milacron Industries, Inc. because it was not a party to the litigation against Milacron Marketing Company, a separate corporate entity from Cincinnati Milacron Industries, Inc.
- finding that Rule 13(a) did not permit the filing of a compulsory counterclaim against Cincinnati Milacron Industries, Inc. because it was not a party to the litigation against Milacron Marketing Company, a separate corporate entity from Cincinnati Milacron Industries, Inc.
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Carl B. Rubin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.