Legal Opinion
Porto Transport, Inc. v. Consolidated Diesel Electric Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 12, 1956PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEVET, District Judge.
Plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of defendant Eur-Pac Corporation, in whole or in part, is disposed of as follows:
The contention that Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., was violated in that plaintiff’s attorney was served with an unsigned copy of the answer, is not well founded. Only the original answer need be signed. Copies served on the other party need not be signed. Pallant v. Sinatra, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1945, 7 F.R.D. 293; Anderson v. Brady, D.C.E.D.Ky.1945, 5 F.R.D. 85. Plaintiff’s motion predicated on this objection is denied.
Paragraph…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. Western Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Pennsylvania R. v. Fox & London, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1938
- Pallant v. SinatraDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
- Anderson v. BradyDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1945
- Porto Transport, Inc. v. Consolidated Diesel Electric Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956
3Cited by2 opinions
- Republic of Cape Verde v. A & A PartnersDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1980
- Frederick v. KoziolDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1990