Legal Opinion
Slocum v. Erie R.
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided March 13, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAZEL, District Judge.
The moving papers and briefs have been submitted to me for examination by consent of plaintiff’s counsel.
The allegations of the complaint are stated in the most general way, and do not afford sufficient detail to apprise,defendant railroad company of the negligent acts committed by it, and of which plaintiff complains. Paragraphs 3 and 9 are bare conclusions and contain no facts in support thereof. The defendant is entitled to know upon what act or acts the plaintiff' administratrix intends to rely on the trial to substantiate her cause of action (O-So-Ezy Mop Co. v.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dwyer v. SlatteryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
- O-So-Ezy Mop Co. v. Channell Chemical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1915
- Waller v. Degnon Contracting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
- Higgins v. Erie RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
3Cited by3 opinions
- Tamm v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935
- Hespe v. Corning Glass Works, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1935
- Tomb v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1933