Legal Opinion

Oppenheimer v. F. J. Young & Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided March 1, 1943PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAFFEY, District Judge.

Defendant White, Weld & Co. (hereinafter sometimes called White-Weld) has moved for four things: (1) Dismissal of the amended complaint, (2) a more definite and certain statement of plaintiffs’ claim, (3) separate statement and numbering of the causes of action and (4) security for costs.

The second, third and fourth items of relief are asked for in event the first relief sought be not granted. Grounds are assigned for each request. These will be set out hereafter.

Although, in form, there are two motions that surely are alternatives, all will be discussed as if four…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Hansberry v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Hackner v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
  3. Central Mexico Light & Power Co. v. MunchCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
  4. Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives & Granting Annuities v. DeckertCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
  5. Pelelas v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Denny v. CareyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Lucas v. Pioneer, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1977
  3. Speed v. Transamerica Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1945
  4. Echols v. Star Loan CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1973
  5. Friedman v. Transamerica CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1945

5 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