Legal Opinion
H F G Co. v. Pioneer Pub. Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided December 2, 1947No. 46 C 691PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LA BUY, District Judge.
Plaintiff moves for a rule on defendants to answer the complaint and supplemental *655complaint. Defendants in opposition to this motion raise two principal arguments (1) that there has been no ruling on its motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 23(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, filed heretofore before Judge Sullivan, and (2) that there has been no ruling on plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint presented in its motion before Judge Sullivan and which defendants oppose on…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Mutual Life Insurnace v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Jones v. Missouri-Edison Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations of KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Berssenbrugge v. Luce Mfg. Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1939
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Keith v. VolpeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Federal Telephone & Radio Corp. v. Associated Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1949
- Ralph W. Keith v. John A. Volpe, as Secretary of Transportation, Earl Wright, on Supplemental Complaint, California Department of Housing and Community Development, Intervenors/appellees on Supplemental Complaint v. City of Hawthorne, on Supplemental ComplaintCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- General Bronze Corp. v. Cupples Products Corp.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1949
- Keith v. VolpeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.