Legal Opinion
Barnsdall Refining Corporation v. Birnamwood Oil Co.
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Decided March 28, 1940No. 4920PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DUFFY, District Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action for payment of an account for merchandise sold and delivered by it to the defendant, said merchandise consisting of petroleum products.
The defendant has interposed its sixth amended answer, set-off, and counter claim.
The plaintiff has made various motions to strike; they can be divided into two groups. This opinion will deal with what we may consider the first group of such motions, designated as Motion No. 1.
The plaintiff has moved to strike portions of the third cause of action in the counter claim. Said motions are directed to references…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hill v. United States Ex Rel. WamplerSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- State Ex Rel. Lopez v. KilligrewIndiana Supreme Court · 1931
- United States v. LairCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
- Twin Ports Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1939
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- United States v. Standard Ultramarine & Color Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- State Ex Rel. Clark v. AdamsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1959
- State of Michigan v. Morton Salt CompanyDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1966
- City of Burbank v. General Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Fifth and Walnut v. Loew's IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.