Metropolis Bending Co. v. Brandwen
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MURPHY, District Judge.
Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs’ action and in the alternative for a more definite statement and to strike impertinent matter. Defendant contends (a) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (b) lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter.
To the pleadings is assigned the task of general notice giving, whereas narrowing and clarifying the basic issues be-tween the parties, ascertaining the facts or information as to the existence or whereabouts of facts relative to those issues is the role of the deposition-discovery process aided by the pre-trial…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Hurn v. OurslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Jenn-Air Products Co. v. Penn Ventilator, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1968
- Smith v. Piper Aircraft Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
- American Standard Life & Accident Insurance v. U.R.L., Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
- Miller v. Tulsa Petroleum Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1953
- Marshall v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1959
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.