Legal Opinion
General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Bayer Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 19, 1946PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHecht, J.
This is a motion, pursuant to subdivision 6 of rule 109 of the Buies of Civil Practice, to strike out the two separate and complete affirmative defenses upon the ground that they are insufficient in law.
Plaintiff and defendant Sterling are both Delaware corporations ; defendant Bayer was organized as a domestic corporation and has been dissolved pursuant to article 10 of the Stock Corporation Law by the filing of a certificate of dissolution by Sterling, as the record holder of all the outstanding shares of Bayer entitled to vote thereon. All of Bayer’s assets were distributed to Sterling as…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- United States v. California Coöperative CanneriesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Matter of Kramer Uchitelle, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1942
- People v. Globe Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Bayer Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1953
- United States v. Bayer CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Dollar Land Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
- United States v. Bayer Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1952
- In re Fidelity National Title InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 2011