Legal Opinion

American-Marietta Co. v. Krigsman

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided March 10, 1959No. Civ. A. No. 19150PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

BYERS, Chief Judge.

This motion was noticed for March 2, 1959, wherein an order is sought pursuant to Rules 52 and 59, F.R.Civ.P. 28 U.S.C.A. amending certain of the findings and conclusions contained in the court’s opinion dated December 22, 1958 (168 F.Supp. 645).

Perhaps it is authorized by so much of subdivision (a) of Rule 52 that says with respect to findings:

“ * * * in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action.”

The decision was dated December 22, 1958 but the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Morse-Starrett Products Co. v. StecconeDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1949
  2. Wightman & Hough Co. v. NivoisCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
  3. American-Marietta Co. v. KrigsmanDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1958

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Pezon Et Michel v. Ernest R. Hewin Associates, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API