Legal Opinion
Contogeorge v. Spyrou
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 2, 1946No. Civ. 35/4PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFEY, District Judge.
In oral arguments and in briefs a good deal has been said about the parol evidence rule. For the purpose of passing on the pending motion, however, I shall not now take up any purely evidence question. On the contrary, I shall confine my discussion to the bases for the motion to strike pursuant to rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. A. following section 723c.
There are four grounds for the motion. These are that the matter objected to is either (1) redundant, or (2) immaterial, or (3) impertinent, or (4) scandalous. Parol evidence rules grew up…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Harrison v. PereaSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Bird v. . MerkleeNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Timetrust, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1939
- Westmoreland Asbestos Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. United Artists CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1940
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Tivoli Realty, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1948
- Hoffman Motors Corporation v. Alfa Romeo SpADistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1965
- Tartak v. Tribunal de Distrito de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1953
- American Machine & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1948
- Hill, Brown Corp. v. BoslerDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.