Legal Opinion
Hylte Bruks Aktiebolag v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 30, 1968No. 68 Civ. 3462PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POLLACK, District Judge.
The defendant, The Babcock & Wilcox Company (hereafter B&W), moves pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a more definite statement of the claims in the amended complaint, ostensibly to enable it to answer with confidence that it understands the true nature of the charges.
The background of this action is as follows.
In 1959, the plaintiff, Hylte Bruks, entered into two agreements with B&W. One agreement was a contract for the purchase of equipment. The other agreement, a license, provided for the furnishing by B&W of certain “know-how”…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gann v. Bernzomatic CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- Hylte Bruks Aktiebolag v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Leon v. Hotel & Club Employees Union Local 6District Court, S.D. New York · 1960
- MacDonald v. AstorDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1957
- U. S. Aluminum Siding Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1958
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bryson v. Bank of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- Boothe v. TRW Credit DataDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1981
- Jumlist v. Owners Insurance Co.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2021