Legal Opinion
Crosney v. Edward Small Productions, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 17, 1942PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEIBELL, District Judge.
The defendant, Edward Small Productions, Inc., has moved under Rule 12 (b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint herein on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
It is alleged in the complaint, that plaintiff is administratrix c. t. a. of one Sam Bernard, deceased, under an appointment of the Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Par. First) ; that the defendant, Edward Small Productions, Inc., is a California corporation (Par. Second); that the matter in controversy…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In re the Estate of HoffmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1940
- New York Foundation v. PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Nillson v. LawrenceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Curnen v. RyanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- David v. City National Securities Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Davis v. BligeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- Frank Oddo v. Jack W. Ries, Mme Publications, Mme Publishing Company and Material Movement EnterprisesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1947
- Noble v. D. Van Nostrand Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
- Davis v. BligeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.