Legal Opinion

McCall v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided February 21, 1957Published

1Opinion of the Court

DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion to strike as insufficient • in law that part of defendant’s answer asserting that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest. Defendant’s answer has previously been sustained but plaintiff here, in effect, moves for reconsideration on the authority of Czaplicki v. The Heogh Silvercloud, 1956, 351 U.S. 525, 76 S.Ct. 946, 100 L. Ed. 1387.

In 1950 plaintiff sustained personal injury for which he received an award under the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law, McKinney’s Consol. Laws, *802c. 67. In regard to common law rights it provides, in § 29, that if…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Czaplicki v. the Hoegh SilvercloudSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  3. Burns Mortgage Co. v. FriedSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. Taylor v. New York Central R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1945
  5. Olker v. SalomoneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API