Legal Opinion

O'Connell v. Hallinan

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1946PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtChurch, J.

Motion by the defendant through his attorney, the Attorney-General of the State of New York, to dismiss the amended complaint is granted. The motion is made pursuant to the provisions of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice (subd. 1) on the ground that the court has not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and (subd. 5) on the further ground that the amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The reasons advanced for granting the motion appear to be urged on the latter ground rather than on the former.

The amended complaint alleges that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Yates v. LansingNew York Supreme Court · 1810
  2. Murray v. BrancatoNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
  3. Karelas v. BaldwinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
  4. Douglas v. CollinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
  5. Douglas v. CollinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Salomon v. MahoneyNew York Supreme Court · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API