Legal Opinion
Bailey v. Texas Co.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided September 17, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
INCH, District Judge.
This suit is one to recover damages for personal injuries, originally commenced in the state court, and duly removed to this court. Defendant now moves for a bill of particulars and for a physical examination of plaintiff. On the return day of the motion no one appeared in opposition. The motion for a bill of particulars, being in proper- form, was thereupon granted, but decision on the motion for a physical examination was reserved.
It might be possible to argue that the default of plaintiff in opposition to this motion could be construed as a consent, but I do not think…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. BotsfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Ex Parte FISKSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Camden & Suburban Railway Co. v. StetsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Lyon v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Quackenbush v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Howland v. BeckCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
- Disalvo v. American Brass Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1937
- Milligan v. Union Pac. R.District Court, S.D. New York · 1934