Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Ruth A. Wittenberg et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Continental Real Estate Partners, Ltd.-74a et al.,defendants, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 625 F.2d 5
Argued May 8, 1980.Decided July 18, 1980
Appeal from the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts; W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., Judge.
Eugene W. Landy, Eatontown, N. J., with whom Landy & Spector, Eatontown, N.J., Albert P. Zabin and Schneider, Reilly, Zabin & Connally, Boston Mass., were on brief, for plaintiffs, appellants.
John J. Langhauser, New York City, with whom Hugh N. Fryer, Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, New York City, Gael Mahony, Hill & Barlow, Boston, Mass., and Allen I. Young, New York City, were on brief, for Price Waterhouse & Co., Inc., defendant, appellee.
Laura Steinberg, Boston, Mass., with whom Edward R. Lev and Sullivan & Worcester, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for Continental Real Estate Partners, Ltd.-74A, Continental Real Estate Equities, Inc., Robert A. Kuras and Kuras & Co., Inc., defendants, appellees.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge, DAVIS, Judge.*
PER CURIAM.
The decision of the district court, 478 F.Supp. 504, is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the thoughtful opinion of the district court. We note only for the sake of completeness that plaintiffs never availed themselves of the opportunity offered by the district court to amend their complaint after its decision.
Affirmed.