Legal Opinion

Lowe v. Consolidated Edison Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided November 26, 1940PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEIBELL, District Judge.

These are motions by defendants, (1) Consolidated Edison Company, Inc., (2) General Electric Company, (3) Artistic Lamps Manufacturing Company, Inc., (4) Proctor Electric Company, (5) R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., and (6) Davega, Inc., pursuant to Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to compel plaintiffs to state their claims or causes of action in separate counts and, pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to furnish defendants with specified particulars. Upon the return day of the motions, it was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. Griffith Amusement Co.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1940

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. United States v. Association of American RailroadsDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1945
  2. Neiman-Marcus v. LaitDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1952
  3. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Quing N. WongDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1966
  4. Dublin Distributors, Inc. v. Edward & John Burke, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1952
  5. Twin Ports Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1942

6 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