Legal Opinion
Meyers v. Huschle Bros.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 22, 1947PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Per curiam
Special Term correctly struck out paragraphs X through XXVI of the answer, allowing defendant to plead over, for the reason that they are redundant, and that section 241 of the Civil Practice Act requires a pleading to contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts, even in an action for libel. Furthermore, the said material is insufficient in law if regarded as purporting to allege the defense of justification, since it is not clear that the answer intends to apply these statements about labor unions in general to the plaintiff union (Larocque v. New York Herald Company, 220 N.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Byam v. . CollinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Bingham v. . GaynorNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Wachter v. . QuenzerNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Peeples v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1942
- Larocque v. . New York Herald CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
3Cited by12 opinions
- Faulk v. Aware, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1956
- Verges v. News Syndicate Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951
- Aacon Contracting Co. v. HerrmannNew York Supreme Court · 1960
- Moriarty v. CurranDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1956
- Girard Acceptance Corp. v. BoyleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1970
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.