Legal Opinion

United States v. Kellert

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided September 24, 1951No. Civ. A. No. 2882PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HINCKS, Chief Judge.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff under Section 206(b) of the Housing .and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S. C.A. § 1896(b), seeking restitution to a tenant of alleged excess rent demanded and received by defendant’s testate. On August 21, 1950, plaintiff served on the defendant a series of requests for admissions, under Federal Rule 36, 28 U.S.C.A. Eight days later, defendant moved to “dismiss” the plaintiff’s request for admissions. He did not accompany his motion with a notice of hearing nor did he request a hearing on his motion at any later time.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Porter v. Warner Holding Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc. v. LindleyDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1952
  2. Wider v. CarrawayDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958
  3. Eastman Kodak Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1964
  4. Widmer v. Fort Smith Vehicle & Machinery Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API