Legal Opinion

Krulikowsky v. Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia & Vicinity

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 28, 1962No. Civ. A. No. 29974PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FREEDMAN, District Judge.

Defendants have filed a motion for a more definite statement under F.R.Civ. P. Rule 12(e) 28 U.S.C.A. and in the alternative for dismissal under Rule 12(b).

Local Union No. 8, one of the defendants, has also filed a separate motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5) on the ground of insufficiency of service of process upon it. Plaintiff admits the insufficiency of service of process but treats it as a mere informality because he has no doubt that proper service can readily be made. This assumption appears to be undisputed. We shall therefore treat the motion under Rule…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Thompson v. Trent Maritime CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
  2. William I. Horlick Co. v. Bogue Electric Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1956

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Contract Buyers League v. F & F INVESTMENTDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1969
  2. In Re Penn Central Securities LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
  3. Bacino v. American Fed. of Mus. of US & CanadaDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1976
  4. Kovalesky v. A.M.C. Associated Merchandising Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1982
  5. Buck v. Union Trustees of Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund of Plumbers & Pipefitters InternationalDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1975

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API