Danbury Bldgs Inc v. Union Carbide Corp
Plaintiff: Danbury Bldgs Inc
Defendant: Union Carbide Corp
Case Number: 3:2009cv01251
Filed: August 6, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: William I. Garfinkel
Presiding Judge: Stefan R. Underhill
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 15, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 56 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER denying 40 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 7/15/13. (Glynn, T.)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Danbury Bldgs Inc v. Union Carbide Corp
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Danbury Bldgs Inc
Represented By: Sherwin Morris Yoder
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Union Carbide Corp
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?