Legal Opinion

Turkish State Railways Administration v. Vulcan Iron Works

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided July 1, 1957No. Civ. A. 4877PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHN W. MURPHY, Chief Judge.

Defendant moves (a) to dismiss, (b) for a more definite statement. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 12(b, e), 28 U.S.C. The more drastic remedy is denied. Sherwin v. Oil City National Bank, 3 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 835, at page 837; United States v. Employing Plasterers Ass’n of Chicago, 1954, 347 U.S. 186, 74 S.Ct. 452, 98 L.Ed. 618.

To the pleadings is assigned the task of general notice giving; the task of narrowing and clarifying the basic issues, ascertaining the facts relative to those issues, is the role of the deposition-discovery process aided by the pre-trial…

2Cases cited47 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Dioguardi v. DurningCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
  4. United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn. of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  5. Continental Collieries, Inc. v. ShoberCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942

42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Watts v. HolmesWyoming Supreme Court · 1963
  2. School Supply Service Company v. J. H. Keeney & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  3. Delaware Valley Drug Co. v. KlineSuperior Court of Delaware · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API