Legal Opinion
Societe Vinicole De Champagne v. Mumm Champagne & Importation Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 22, 1935PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
I grant the motion to strike out the first, second, third, and fifth alleged separate defenses and do not give leave to amend.
I grant the motion to strike out the counterclaim and do not give leave to amend.
I grant the motion to strike out the fourth alleged defense with leave to amend as herein indicated within twenty days from the service on the defendant’s attorneys of the order entered on this motion with notice of entry. Failing that amendment, the fourth defense will also be finally stricken out.
I. A motion to strike out separate defenses, being the equivalent of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Baglin v. Cusenier Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1920
- Ingenohl v. Olsen & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- President Suspender Co. v. MacwilliamCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
- Springer v. . BienNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- John Zwack, Bela Zwack and Dora Zwack, as Co-Partners Doing Business as J. Zwack & Company v. Kraus Bros. & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- F. PALICIO Y COMPANIA, SA v. BrushDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- E. Leitz, Inc. v. WatsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1957
- Société Vinicole De Champagne v. Mumm Champagne & Importation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1935
- Societe Vinicole De Champagne v. Mumm Champagne & Importation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1935
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.