Turkish State Railways Administration v. Vulcan Iron Works
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
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
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Dioguardi v. DurningCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn. of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- 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
- Watts v. HolmesWyoming Supreme Court · 1963
- School Supply Service Company v. J. H. Keeney & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- Delaware Valley Drug Co. v. KlineSuperior Court of Delaware · 1958