Legal Opinion
Talarowski v. Pennsylvania Railroad
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided November 8, 1955No. Civ. A. No. 1695PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WRIGHT, District Judge.
This is a motion by the plaintiff under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. to strike the defendant’s first affirmative defense. This motion is directed to both counts of the complaint and is predicated upon the *504assumption that the deféndant’s affirmative defense is insufficient in law.
A motion to strike an affirmative defense will be denied if the defense is sufficient as a matter of law, or if it fairly presents a question of law or fact which the court ought to hear. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2320. For the purpose of reaching a decision on…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1953
- Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. RockSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Barnidge v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
- Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad v. BorumSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Southern Pac. Co. v. LibbeyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952
3Cited by11 opinions
- Martin Company v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Florida · 1961
- Air Mod Corporation v. NewtonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1965
- Still v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Gilbert v. Eli Lilly & Co.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1972
- Cross v. Houston Belt & Terminal Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1961
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.