Legal Opinion
Geismar v. Bond & Goodwin, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 8, 1941PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COXE, District Judge.
These are motions by the defendants challenging the sufficiency of the 2d, 3d, 4th and 6th causes of action of the amended complaint. The 2d, 3d and 4th causes of action are identical with the same causes of action of the original complaint; the 6th cause of action is new with the amended complaint.
The defendant Bond & Goodwin Inc. ■will hereafter be referred to as “Bond & Goodwin”; the defendant States Steamship Company as “State”; the defendant Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Company as “Pacific”; and the defendant Sam P. Fleming as “Fleming”.
The amended complaint contains…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Geismar v. Bond & Goodwin, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941
3Cited by16 opinions
- Myzel v. FieldsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1967
- Kardon v. National Gypsum Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1946
- Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Speed v. Transamerica Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1951
- Brown v. BullockDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.