Legal Opinion
Mitchell v. Carborundum Co.
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided October 24, 1947No. Civil Action No. 3230PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KNIGHT, District Judge.
On September 11, 1947, an ex parte motion was made to this court for an order permitting the plaintiff to amend its complaint. The motion was granted and an order entered thereon. No notice of such motion was given the defendant, Carborundum Company, or its attorneys. No pleading has been served by that defendant. Within 20 days after the service of the complaint, the attorneys for the plaintiff and said defendant entered into a written stipulation extending the time to 15 days in which that defendant might answer, make a motion directed to the pleading or pursue…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Davis v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1944
- Curacao Trading Co. v. Federal Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Feldman Inv. Co. v. Connecticut General Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1935
- Hupfeld v. Automaton Piano Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Fibreboard Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1953
- Kaminsky v. AbramsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- Oliefabrik v. A. O. Smith Corp.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1958
- Hargrove v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1957
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.