Legal Opinion

Steingut v. Guaranty Trust Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 3, 1941PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CONGER, District Judge.

These are three motions: (1) by plaintiffs for a more definite statement of defendant’s answer, or for a bill of particulars; (2) by plaintiffs to strike out the seventh defense from defendant’s answer; and (3) by defendant to compel answers (under Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.) upon an examination held pursuant to Rule 26.

The motion for a more definite statement, or a bill of particulars, is denied. The plaintiffs state that the purpose for this request is “in order to prepare for trial, prevent surprise and to limit the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Brinley v. LewisDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport CorporationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1939
  3. Laverett v. Continental Briar Pipe Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1938
  4. Tully v. HowardDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
  5. Pearson v. Hershey Creamery Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1939

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hercules Powder Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1943
  2. Brewster v. Technicolor, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941
  3. D. L. Stern Agency, Inc. v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941
  4. Porter v. ShoemakerDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API