Legal Opinion
National Hairdressers' & Cosmetologists' Ass'n v. Philad Co.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided January 12, 1943No. Civil Action No. 249PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BIGGS, Circuit Judge.
The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and contends that there are three reasons for doing so.
It alleges that the plaintiff, The National Hairdressers’ & Cosmetologists’ Association, Inc., is without capacity to sue. The defendant relies on the decision of this court in National Hairdressers’ & Cosmetologists’ Ass’n v. Philad Co., D.C., 41 F.Supp. 701, 708, affirmed 3 Cir., 129 F.2d 1020, wherein it was stated that an examination of the constitution and by-laws of National showed that it did not possess the capacity to bring suit in a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Treemond Co. v. Schering CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- Zenie Bros. v. MiskendDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1935
- National Hairdressers' & Cosmetologists' Ass'n v. Philad Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1941
- United States v. MobleyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1942
- Dewey & Almy Chemical Co. v. American Anode, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1942
3Cited by5 opinions
- Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corporation of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- Speed v. Transamerica CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1955
- Girdler Corporation v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1944
- Hartford Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Henry L. Crowley & Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1954
- New York Clothing Mfrs. Exchange, Inc. v. ShiklerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1950