Marquardt-Glenn Corp. v. Lumelite Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
WEINFELD, District Judge.
Insofar as the motion asks dismissal on the ground that the first cause of action fails to set forth a claim on which relief can be granted, it is denied. The complaint satisfies the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. that it contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”, and it gives adequate notice of the nature of the claim. MacLeod v. Cohen-Erichs Corp., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 103. The allegations of the first cause of action set forth the traditional elements of breach of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Hartman Electrical Mfg. Co. v. Prime Mfg. Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1949
- MacLeod v. Cohen-Erichs CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- O'Donnell v. BreuningerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1949
- Howell v. GrayDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1950
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Berman v. SUGO LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Oil & Gas Ventures-First 1958 Fund, Ltd. v. KungDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- Stephens v. American Home Assurance Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- Stratton Group, Ltd. v. SprayregenDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- Sprott v. RobertsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1964
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.