Legal Opinion

Boro Hall Corporation v. General Motors Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 8, 1942No. 94PublishedCited by 52 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The motion to dismiss the complaint was accompanied by an affidavit which in turn was answered by the plaintiff without raising any material issues of fact. We see no reason why the application should not be treated as one for summary judgment under Section 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. A. following section 723c. But even if the motion were regarded as made'under Section 12(b) of the rules, we have held that affidavits might be employed. Central Mexico Light & Power Co. v. Munch, 2 Cir., 116 F.2d 85, 87. See also Gallup v. Caldwell, 3 Cir., 120…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1941
  2. Gallup v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
  3. Central Mexico Light & Power Co. v. MunchCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940

3Cited by52 opinions

  1. Continental T. v. Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. National Screen Service Corporation v. The Poster Exchange, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
  3. Packard Motor Car Company v. The Webster Motor Car Company, the Webster Motor Car Company v. Packard Motor Car CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
  4. Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
  5. Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991

47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API