Legal Opinion
Buckeye Powder Co. v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 28, 1912PublishedCited by 14 opinions
At Law. Action by the Buckeye Powder Company against the E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Company and others. On motion to strike out declaration.
1Opinion of the Court
RELLSTAB, District Judge.
The plaintiff has filed his declaration against 28 persons (defendants so called), and this motion is made on behalf of the E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Company, Eastern Dynamite Company, and International Smokeless Powder & Chemical Company, three of the four defendants who were served *516with process. The motion is founded on section 110 of the New Jersey Practice Act (P. R. 1903, p. 569), which section is as follows:
“The court or a judge may on four days’ noticé strike out any pleading which is irregular or defective, or is so framed as to prejudice, embarrass or…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Northern Securities Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Loewe v. LawlorSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Connors v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Mexican Central Railway Co. v. PinkneySupreme Court of the United States · 1893
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Louisiana Farmers' Protective Union, Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
- United States v. Association of American RailroadsDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1945
- Hansen Packing Co. v. Armour & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1936
- United States v. A. Bentley & Sons Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1923
- Louisiana Farmers' Protective Union, Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. of America, Inc.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1940
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.