Legal Opinion

Steiger v. Mullaney

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided November 1, 1948PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KNOX, Chief Judge.

From the standpoint of personal inclination, I should be glad to relieve plaintiff from the consequences of the failure of her attorneys seasonably to demand that her cause of action be tried to a jury. Nevertheless, since defendant opposes the motion here made, I seriously doubt my right, except for reasons far more persuasive than those here advanced, to exercise my discretion in favor of the plaintiff. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., have now been in force for a period of about ten years, and if a default thereunder is believed by an adversary to be of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McNabb v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
  2. Arnold v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1947
  3. MacDonald v. Central Vermont Ry., Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1940
  4. Irvine v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1946

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Reeves v. Pennsylvania R.District Court, D. Delaware · 1949
  2. Mason v. British Overseas Airways Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957
  3. Cataldo v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1966
  4. Ridge Theatre Corp. v. United Artists Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961
  5. Polak v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N. V. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines HollandDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1956

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