Boro Hall Corporation v. General Motors Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
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
- United States v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1941
- Gallup v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- Central Mexico Light & Power Co. v. MunchCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
3Cited by52 opinions
- Continental T. v. Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- National Screen Service Corporation v. The Poster Exchange, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- 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
- Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- 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.