Legal Opinion
American Machine & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 12, 1948PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RYAN, District Judge.
Defendant moves pursuant to Rule 12(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., for an order striking, from plaintiff’s amended reply to defendant’s counterclaims, defenses comprising twenty-three separate paragraphs of the reply—(in effect, everything but the denials therein).
A summary statement of this litigation will suffice. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement on April 3, 1934 under which plaintiff received from defendant patents and equipment for making fans and like products and for which plaintiff was to pay defendant license fees based on…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Dioguardi v. DurningCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Metzger v. . &198tna Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- American MacHine & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Subin v. GoldsmithCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
- Tivoli Realty, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1948
- Hoffman Motors Corporation v. Alfa Romeo SpADistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1965
- County Vanlines Inc. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Smith v. Piper Aircraft Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.