Williams v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co.
This text of 122 F.3d 1076 (Williams v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
122 F.3d 1076
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
J. Phillip WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
and
Herbert EISEN, Trustee for Margaret m. Eisen Family Trust,
Plaintiff-intervenors,
v.
MGM-PATHE COMMUNICATIONS CO.; Pathe Communications
Corporation; Credit Lyonnais Bank, Credit
Lyonnais Bank Nederland N.V.; Giancarlo
Parretti, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-55473.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 7, 1997.
Decided Sept. 4, 1997.
Redesignated as opinion November 19, 1997.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
122 F.3d 1076, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 29443, 1997 WL 547965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-mgm-pathe-communications-co-ca9-1997.