Legal Opinion
Porto Transport, Inc. v. Consolidated Diesel Electric Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 18, 1956PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEVET, District Judge.
Plaintiff has moved to strike certain paragraphs of the answer and counterclaim of defendant Eur-Pac Corporation on the ground that they are not simple, concise and direct and that the defenses are not separately stated, all in violation of Rules 8(e) and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. Plaintiff also seeks to strike certain paragraphs of the answer, counterclaim and cross-claim of said defendant on the ground that they fail to state a legal defense and that they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
This is an action by a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. FinkSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Central Iron & Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. York & Whitney Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Mahar v. . Harrington Park Villa SitesNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Iowa Health System v. Trinity Health Corp.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2001
- U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. A.S. Templeton Group, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2003
- Porto Transport, Inc. v. Consolidated Diesel Electric Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Arthur G. Silk, Inc.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1982
- Porto Transport, Inc. v. Consolidated Diesel Electric Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1960