Legal Opinion
Eastman Kodak Co. v. McAuley
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 1, 1941PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEIBELL, District Judge.
Defendants have moved pursuant to Rule 14(a), F.R.C.P., 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for leave to serve a summons and a third party complaint upon Bell & Howell Company, an Illinois corporation alleged to have a place of business within this district.
The plaintiff has moved under Rule 12 (e) (f) for a bill of particulars and for an order striking certain matter from the third party complaint as redundant, immaterial and impertinent. This motion involves several subdivisions which will be hereinafter discussed.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is predicated upon…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- E. Edelmann & Co. v. Triple-A Specialty Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1937
- Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- United States v. Esnault-PelterieSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Bellavance v. Plastic-Craft Novelty Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1939
- Tyler v. BostonSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Beaunit Mills, Inc. v. Eday Fabric Sales CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Edward J. Kennedy, Henry Martinez, Herman Paprzycki and Dominick Stabilito v. Lakso Company, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
- Sinaiko Bros. Coal & Oil Co. v. Ethyl Gasoline Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
- American Machine & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1948
- F. E. Myers & Brother Co. v. Goulds Pumps, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1950
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.