Legal Opinion
Panaview Door & Window Co. v. Van Ness
District Court, S.D. California
Decided September 15, 1955No. 18127PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JERTBERG, District Judge.
The motions of the defendants to dismiss the action, for summary judgment, to strike certain portions of the complaint and for more definite statement and the motion of plaintiff to amend the complaint, came on for hearing on July 18, 1955. The plaintiff was represented by Thomas P. Mahoney, and the defendants were represented by David Mellinkoff and by Charles G. Lyon.
It was stipulated by the defendants at the hearing that the motion of the plaintiff to amend the complaint be granted, whereupon the Court granted such motion. The amendment to the complaint simply…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Electric Storage Battery Co. v. ShimadzuSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rivers v. NorfolkDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1962
- Kalvar Corporation v. Xidex CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1973
- Control Components, Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.District Court, C.D. California · 1977