Legal Opinion
McCormack v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided March 11, 1968No. 5-66-77 CivilPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILES W. LORD, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM
Defendant has moved for dismissal of several of the claims under Rules 12 and 56. Alternatively, defendant has moved the Court for an order requiring a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12 (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In view of the Court’s decision to grant the motion for a more definite statement, it would perhaps be more orderly to defer decision on the other motions. However, because of the many delays which this case has already encountered, all motions will be decided at this point insofar as possible with the hope of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Walker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- In Re McConnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Moore v. Mead's Fine Bread Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Salco Corporation, Formerly Known and Doing Business as Denver Buick, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, Buick Motor DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1975
- Classen v. WellerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Suburban Mobile Homes, Inc. v. AMFAC Communities, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1980
- McDonald v. Johnson & JohnsonDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1982
- Palmer News, Inc. v. ARA Services, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1979