Legal Opinion

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Vitamin Technologists, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California

Decided December 8, 1939No. 565-MPublished

1Opinion of the Court

McCORMICK, District Judge.

The motion of defendant under Rule 12 (e) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for an order .requiring plaintiff to file a more definite statement or a bill of particulars amplifying the complaint is granted as to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7a, 7b, 10a, 11a and lib of said motion. Compliance with this order is required to be made by plaintiff within thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling. Exceptions allowed plaintiff.

The motion of defendant under Rule 12 (e) aforesaid, except as to matters covered by order made herein November 29,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & SonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Dupont Textile Mills, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Sure-Fit Products Co. v. Med-Vogue Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Fischback v. Solvay Process Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API