Legal Opinion
Holmberg v. Anchell
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 20, 1938PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOLSEY, District Judge.
My decision is:
1. That this suit be dismissed as against defendant Spiegelberg without costs for the reason that he was made a party hereto solely for the purpose of discovery, and has complied with the prayer of the complaint in that respect, leaving no residuum of relief due from him to the plaintiffs.
2. That the suit be dismissed as against Jeanne Gertler and Sirma Devlet'without costs.
3. That the cross suit for indemnity by Battelle, Ludwig & Co. against John H. Gertler and Michael J. Devlet be dismissed without costs.
4. That the complaint be dismissed without…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Southern Pacific Co. v. BogertSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Galliher v. CadwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Kent v. . Quicksilver Mining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Broderick v. RosnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Hanlin v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- EW Bliss Company v. Cold Metal Process CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1959
- Holmberg v. ArmbrechtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Holmberg v. HannafordDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.