Legal Opinion

Metropolis Bending Co. v. Brandwen

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided September 7, 1948No. Civil Action No. 2679PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. Hurn v. OurslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  4. Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. 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

  1. Jenn-Air Products Co. v. Penn Ventilator, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Smith v. Piper Aircraft Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
  3. American Standard Life & Accident Insurance v. U.R.L., Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Miller v. Tulsa Petroleum Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1953
  5. Marshall v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1959

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API