Legal Opinion
Steingut v. National City Bank of New York
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided January 10, 1941No. 1607PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.
This is a motion “for an order remanding this cause to said Supreme Court”.
Although the plaintiffs had due notice of defendant’s objection to the form of the notice of motion, nothing has been done by them to correct it. The notice of motion does not comply with Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c.
Under Rule 7, Subdivision (b) 1, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the moving party “shall state with particularity the grounds therefor” of the motion. The requirement of this rule causing the moving party to state…
2Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. KrasnovDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
- National Excess Insurance v. BinghamNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1987
- National Excess Ins. Co. v. BinghamNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1987
- Budget Dress Corp. v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' UnionDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1959
- Patton v. PattonIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.