Legal Opinion

Powell v. Powell

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 24, 1953PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEager, J.

This is a motion, pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike as sham and frivolous from an answer, a denial of a certain allegation in the first cause of action in the complaint in this action, and a motion pursuant to rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike out certain defenses to said cause of action as insufficient in law. It is true, as defendant claims, that the motion pursuant to rule 109 “ searches the record ”, and that the court should first consider the claim now made by defendant that the first cause of action is insufficient in law.

By the said first…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sinclair v. . PurdyNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Latham v. Father DivineNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
  3. Condon v. Associated Hospital ServiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
  4. Dyer v. Broadway Central BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
  5. Abrams v. AllenNew York Court of Appeals · 1947

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Morris v. MacNabSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
  2. Towner v. BergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API