Legal Opinion

McKenzie v. Blidberg Rothchild Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided April 28, 1952PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

This is a motion to require the plaintiff to separately state the causes of action al- ■ leged in his amended complaint, or, in the alternative, to dismiss that complaint. The alternative motion was denied . from the bench so that we are concerned here only with the first motion.

The plaintiff, a British seaman, seeks to recover under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, for injuries sustained on board the Greek flag vessel, S. S.. Diamantis, allegedly received on or about August 2nd, 1947. In the original complaint the plaintiff alleged that the defendant owned,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kyriakos v. GoulandrisCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  2. Iocono v. AnastasioDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1948

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dubrow v. Small Business AdministrationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1972
  2. East Crossroads Center, Inc. v. Mellon-Stuart Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Dubrow v. Small Business AdministrationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API