Legal Opinion
Polychrome Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 16, 1966No. 66 Civ. 979PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
BONSAL, District Judge.
Defendant Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) moves pursuant to Rule 12(f), F.R.Civ.P., to strike paragraph 15 of the plaintiff’s amended complaint as an improper reference to a plea of nolo contendere and to a judgment entered thereon. In paragraph 15 plaintiff alleges that:
“In United States v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company [249 F.Supp. 594] (Criminal Action No. 61-73-D in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois) Minnesota was charged *103with the aforesaid attempt to monopolize the above described interstate…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Twin Ports Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1939
- City of Burbank v. General Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Commonwealth Edison Company v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1963
- Atlantic City Electric Co. v. General Electric Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1962
- Dalweld Company v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Control Data Corp. v. International Business MacHines Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1969
- Obron v. Union Camp Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1971