U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1976

Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Odif Podell, and Eon Corporation and Kerns Manufacturing Corp.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided December 6, 1976 · No. 505

546 F.2d 495 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (Cal. 1986)
In re Emergency Beacon Corp. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1984)
In re Mortgageamerica Corporation, Debtor. The American National Bank of Austin v. Mortgageamerica Corporation (5th Cir. 1983)
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)
Government of India v. Cargill, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1978)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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:

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)

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.