Le Pochat v. Pendleton
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtEder, J.
Motion is granted. By this application under subdivision 6 of rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, the plaintiffs move to strike out the first separate defense upon the ground that it appears on the face thereof that it is insufficient in law.
The plaintiffs, husband and wife, were employed by the defendant, as butler and cook, respectively. The complaint contains three causes of action: the first cause of action is brought by the husband to recover damages, alleging that the defendant committed a malicious and wanton assault upon him, causing him to suffer serious injury; the second cause…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Barrencotto v. Cocker Saw Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1934
- DeCoigne v. Ludlum Steel Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Burkhard v. Travellers' Insurance Co. of HartfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
- Williams v. . U.S.M.A. AssociationNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Williams v. United States Mutual Accident Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Breimhorst v. BeckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Jablonski v. MultackAppellate Court of Illinois · 1978
- Heskett v. Fisher Laundry & Cleaners Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
- Readinger v. GottschallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Magliulo v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.