Legal Opinion

Montecatini Societá Generale v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.

District Court, D. Maryland

Decided December 16, 1966No. Civ. No. 16526PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

This case is before the Court on defendants’ motion to add Enjay Chemical Company, a Delaware corporation (En-*589jay), as a party defendant pursuant to Rule 25(c), F.R.Giv.P., which provides:

“Rule 25. Substitution of Parties
“(c) Transfer of Interest. In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. Service of the motion shall be made as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule.”

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hoffman v. BlaskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Hazeltine Corp. v. KirkpatrickCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
  3. Etten v. Lovell Mfg. Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1954

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Sandstrom v. LarsenHawaii Supreme Court · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API