Legal Opinion
Hopsdal v. Loewenstein
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided October 5, 1945No. Civ. A. 43 C 1045PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BUY, District Judge.
Plaintiff seeks a summary judgment based on the pleadings and also upon defendants’ alleged failure to answer plaintiff’s request for admission under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c.
The first objection raised to defendants’ answer is that the defendants have not complied with Rule 36 in filing their answer within the time prescribed by the Rule. Defendants contend that plaintiff has specified no time in their request for the filing of such answer and therefore plaintiff’s objection is not well taken. In Kraus v. General…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Countee v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
- Booth Fisheries Corporation v. General Foods Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1939
- Kraus v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
3Cited by9 opinions
- Moses v. MosesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1973
- Robinson v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1962
- Swan v. ZwahlenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1955
- Water Hammer Arrester Corp. v. TowerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1949
- Jackson v. Kotzebue Oil SalesDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1955
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.