Legal Opinion
Biesenkamp v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 13, 1976No. Civ. A. No. 75-2523PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
FOGEL, District Judge.
Before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Jury Trial pursuant to Rules 38 and 39(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, that motion will be denied.
On September 4, 1975, a Complaint in this case was filed in the Clerk’s Office. Since a demand for Jury Trial was not affixed to the Complaint, Defendants’ attorneys naturally were not put on notice of the evidence of any Jury Trial demand. However, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s attorney did state on the United States District Court…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Virgil Cochran v. Francis J. Birkel, Virginia Hager, Bettie Klontz, and Kathy Rubens, All IndividuallyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Rosen v. DickCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Pereira v. Checkmate Communications Co. (In Re Checkmate Stereo & Electronics, Ltd.)District Court, E.D. New York · 1982
- Johnnie Wall v. National Railroad Passenger CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Pinemont Bank v. Henderson BelkCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.