Legal Opinion
Martin v. Hunt
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided October 31, 1961No. Civ. A. No. 61-61-CPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFREY, District Judge.
The facts underlying this litigation are set out at length in an earlier opinion, dated March 6, 1961 (Martin v. Wyzanski, D.C., 191 F.Supp. 931).
On June 16, 1961, a Memorandum and Order (28 F.R.D. 35, 36) was handed down granting defendant Hunt’s motion to strike the complaint in toto and granting petitioner Martin “leave to file an amended complaint complying with the requirements of Rule 8 and setting forth a short, concise, and plain statement of his claim against the respondent Francis J. Hunt, within thirty days from the date hereof.”
Some 35 days later,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Keene Lumber Co. v. LeventhalCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1948
- Everett James Peckham v. M. P. ScanlonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1957
- McCoy v. Providence Journal Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1951
- United States v. Newbury Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
- Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Farmers Bank of Clay, KentuckyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- DDR Construction Services, Inc. v. Siemens Industry, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Transtech Industries, Inc. v. a & Z SEPTIC CLEANDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
- Edwin F. Gordon, Cross-Appellee v. E. G. Green, Gustave T. Broberg, Jr., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Shakespeare v. WilsonDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1966
- Industrial Building Materials, Inc. v. Interchemical Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.