Legal Opinion
Universal Rim Co. v. General Motors Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided April 9, 1929No. 5082PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.
There is no merit in the contention that the court should not have permitted the defendants to file a motion to dismiss, but should have required the filing of an answer. The term “answer,” as used in the stipulation giving defendants additional time for filing answer, is to be construed, we think, to include a motion to dismiss. New Jersey v. New York, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.) 323, 8 L. Ed. 414; Martin v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 151 U. S. 673, 14 S. Ct. 533, 38 L. Ed. 311. Besides, a trial court can look to the sufficiency of a bill on its own motion, at any time, even after…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Martin's Administrator v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Hamilton v. Home InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Javierre v. Central AltagraciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Pierce v. National Bank of CommerceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1920
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Patton v. Administrator of Civil AeronauticsDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1953
- George H. Scherr v. Difco Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
- Sanderson v. Postal Life Ins. Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
- American Chain Co. v. TurnerDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1931
- United States v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1937