Legal Opinion

Kuenzel v. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 30, 1939No. 87PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KALODNER, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s complaint, sounding in tort, sought to recover for an alleged libel. Defendant answered and counterclaimed in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Plaintiff then filed this motion to strike the counterclaim because of the difference in the forms of action.

Neither party has furnished any authorities upon the precise question subsequent in date to the effective date (September 1, 1938) of the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C.A. following Section 723c, and my own search has disclosed none.

Were this…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Shepard v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  3. Munter v. Weil Corset Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  4. Hill v. WalkerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
  5. United States Ex Rel. Foster Wheeler Corp. v. American Surety Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1938

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Fierstein v. Piper Aircraft CorporationDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Edmonds v. LuptonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
  3. Warren v. Indian Refining Co.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1939
  4. Schram v. HolmesDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1943
  5. Matanuska Valley Bank v. ArnoldDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1953

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API