Legal Opinion
Canister Co. v. National Can Corporation
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided February 19, 1947No. Civil Actions 309 and 365PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, District Judge.
Defendant’s motions are denied. The motion to amend must be denied because it is not timely, irrespective of the correctness of the interpretation that the proposed defense is legally insufficient under New York law. In the previous memorandum discussing this phase of the case (see' D.C., 6 F.R.D. 613) it was apparently not clear to defendant that the court used timeliness in the broad sense and not simply to signify some particular stage of the proceeding. The court has already held that the question of the duration of the contract was within the separate issues tried…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Devlin v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Rosenthal Paper Co. v. National Folding Box & Paper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Rochester Lantern Co. v. Stiles & Parker Press Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- New York Bank Note Co. v. Hamilton Bank Note Engraving & Printing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1905
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Application of Reconstruction Finance Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1952
- Wetherell Bros. Co. v. United States Steel CoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1953
- Itek Corporation v. Chicago Aerial Industries, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1969
- Canister Co. v. National Can Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1948
- Knitting Machines Corp. v. Hayward Hosiery Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1950