Legal Opinion

Fischback v. Solvay Process Co.

District Court, N.D. New York

Decided September 19, 1939No. 220PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRYANT, District Judge.

The motion for bill of particulars, now under consideration, must be limited to information necessary to enable defendant to prepare its answer. Tully v. Howard et. al., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 6.

I have attempted to determine the particulars, not set forth in the complaint, which defendant requires for that purpose. I direct that plaintiff answer paragraphs one, two, three, eight, nine and ten of the petition as fully as his knowledge and information permits.

An order may be presented directing service of such a bill on defendant’s attorney within twenty days from date of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Tully v. HowardDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gum, Inc. v. Gumakers of America, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1941
  2. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Vitamin Technologists, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API