Legal Opinion

Muldowney v. Seaberg Elevator Co.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided January 7, 1941No. Civ. No. 1701PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a motion on behalf of the defendant for a bill of particulars.

Demands 1, 2, 7 and 9 should be answered ; as to demand 8 it will be sufficient for plaintiff to give the number of hours per week of each week he will claim he was actively employed and engaged in the work of the defendant, and he will not be required to give a schedule of the days and hours.

It is true that the institution of the action is a sufficient demand, where a demand is required, but plaintiff having alleged the making of a demand prior to the institution of this action, he should answer…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Walling v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1943
  2. Dreskin v. ZinkinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1946
  3. S.G. v. San Francisco Unified School DistrictDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API