Dysart v. Remington Rand, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
HINCKS, District Judge.
These are two companion actions, to the complaint in each of which an answer has been filed comprising as a first defense a general denial and as defenses second to thirteenth various affirmative defenses coupled with a general denial. To the answer in each case the plaintiff has addresssed a motion denominated “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings”. However, the substance of the motion makes it clear that what the plaintiff seeks is a ruling on the legal sufficiency of defenses two to thirteen. Plaintiff’s counsel indicate their own uncertainty as to whether under the…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Bush v. Remington Rand, Inc. Bush v. Remington Rand, IncCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- Schenley Distillers Corporation v. RenkenDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1940
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1943
- Sbicca-Del Mac, Inc. v. Milius Shoe Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1940
- Sepúlveda Vda. de Ducheny v. CasanovaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1951
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.