Legal Opinion
Kenney v. Fox
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Decided June 3, 1955No. Civ. A. 2542PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STARR, Chief Judge.
On Plaintiff’s Motion for a More Definite Statement
Rule 12(e) as amended of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides in part:
“If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, he may move for a more definite statement before interposing his responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired.”
Rule 7 as amended of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled “Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions”,…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Screws v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Bradley v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Shelley v. KraemerSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Tenney v. BrandhoveSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Snowden v. HughesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Kenney v. FoxCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1956
- Niklaus v. SimmonsDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1961
- Mattheis v. HoytDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1955
- Schwartzman v. Schwartzman Packing Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1983
- McHan v. GrandboucheDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1983
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.