Legal Opinion

Bailey v. Unocal Corp.

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided November 29, 1988No. 88 C 1807PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MORAN, District Judge.

Defendants move pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike and dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. In such circumstances, any inference drawn must be favorable to the plaintiff, United Milk Products Co. v. Michigan Avenue National Bank of Chicago, 401 F.2d 14, 17 (7th Cir.1968), and the allegations contained in the complaint are to be accepted as true. National Van Lines, Inc. v. United States, 326 F.2d 362, 372 (7th Cir.1964); 5 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1363 at 656 (1969).

F…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Aldinger v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,755, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,074 William B. Weinberger v. James C. Kendrick, Charles M. CoyneCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
  5. Patricia Babrocky v. Jewel Food Company and Retail Meatcutters Union, Local 320, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Busby v. Truswal Systems Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1989
  2. Piech v. Arthur Andersen & Co., SCDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1994
  3. Bartlette v. Hyatt RegencyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016
  4. Curcio v. Chinn Enterprises, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1995
  5. Juarez v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1990

8 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