Legal Opinion
Brown v. Fire Ass'n
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 16, 1940PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MANDELBAUM, District Judge.
The court heretofore denied the plaintiff’s motion for a bill of particulars. She now moves for reargument stating that the purpose of her motion originally was not to enable her to frame a responsive pleading, but to prepare for trial and that such procedure is permissible under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
I have re-examined the entire matter and have decided to adhere to my original ruling. The words “to prepare for trial” as contained in the language of Rule 12(e) are comprehended in the words “to prepare…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brockway Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1940
- Prutinsky v. Commercial Union Assur. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1940
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re Glenfed, Inc. Securities LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Poole v. WhiteDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1941
- Porter v. ShoemakerDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1947
- Prutinsky v. Commercial Union Assur. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- Decker v. Glenfed, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994