Legal Opinion
Chase v. Ware
District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
Decided March 22, 1967No. Civ. No. 6581PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DAUGHERTY, District Judge.
After both defendants have answered herein the plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the case under Rule 41(a) (2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The defendant, Honeywell, Inc., objects to the Court allowing a voluntary dismissal of this case.
A motion by a plaintiff to dismiss under Rule 41(a) (2) after an answer has been filed rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Federal Practice and Procedure, Barron and Holtzoff, Volume 2B, Section 912, page 110. A plaintiff does not have an absolute right to dismiss, with the discretion of the Court running…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Moore v. C. R. Anthony Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1952
3Cited by4 opinions
- In the Matter of International Airport Inn Partnership, Debtor. Margaret G. Schroeder v. International Airport Inn PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority v. LeithCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
- Kennedy v. NicastroDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1981
- Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority v. Robert Leith and Puerto Rico Line, Inc., Third-Party v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc., Caribbean Bunkering Co. And John Doe, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981