Henry D. Sedgwick Stern and Walter B. Slocombe, Personal Representatives of the Estate of Philip M. Stern v. General Electric Company, John F. Welch, Jr., Lawrence A. Bossidy, Edward E. Hood, Jr., Richard T. Baker, James G. Boswell Ii, Silas C. Cathcart, Charles D. Dickey, Jr., Lawrence E. Fouraker, Henry H. Henley, Henry L. Hillman, Robert E. Mercer, Gertrude G. Michelson, Barbara Scott Preiskel, Lewis T. Preston, Frank H. T. Rhodes, Andrew C. Siegler and Walter B. Wriston

Citations: 23 F.3d 746; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10854Docket: 1471

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; May 16, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion AnalysisCombined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this legal matter, personal representatives of an estate pursued an appeal against General Electric Company and other associated defendants. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed two pivotal issues from the district court's proceedings: the denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend their amended complaint and the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The appellate panel, comprising Circuit Judges Van Graafeiland and Winter along with District Judge Mishler, reviewed the lower court's decisions. They affirmed these decisions, aligning with the district court's reasoning as articulated in the previous judgments, specifically those reported in Stern v. General Elec. Co., 837 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) and Stern v. General Elec. Co., 1992 WL 138339 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 1992). The affirmation reflects the appellate court's conclusion that the plaintiffs' arguments lacked substantive merit, thereby sustaining the lower court's rulings on both the motion to amend and the summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Legal Issues Addressed

Motion to Amend Complaintsubscribe to see similar legal issues

Application: The appellate court evaluated the plaintiffs' motion to amend their amended complaint and affirmed the lower court's denial, indicating the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a compelling reason for amendment.

Reasoning: The appeal was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which focused on two primary issues from a lower court's rulings: the denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend their amended complaint and the granting of the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues

Application: The appellate court upheld the summary judgment granted in favor of the defendants, endorsing the district court's rationale that the plaintiffs did not raise a genuine issue of material fact.

Reasoning: The court affirmed the lower court's decisions, referencing the district court's reasoning in its prior judgments.