Legal Opinion

Burgans v. New York Central Railroad

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided March 20, 1961PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves “for an order striking out defendant’s answer and directing the entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff upon the cause of action set forth in the complaint * * *.”

The motion is denied.

1. Neither party has complied with General Rule 9(g) of this court.

2. If the motion is intended as one for summary judgment on the whole claim, the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries cannot be determined and evaluated on this motion.

8. If the motion is intended as one for an interlocutory summary judgment on the issue of liability under F.R. Civ.P.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Coffman v. Federal Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
  2. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. United States Camo Corp.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1956
  3. Bernardo v. Bethlehem Steel Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1959
  4. United States v. Copacabana, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1955
  5. Chorbajian v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mary Taylor, Administratrix of the Estate of John H. Taylor, Deceased v. Rederi A/s Volo v. Lavino Shipping Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
  2. Kollsman Instrument Corp. v. Astek Instrument Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1964
  3. Arroyo Irizarry v. Ocasio SantosTribunal De Apelaciones De Puerto Rico/Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico · 1996
  4. Tack v. Augustine, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County1966

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

Powered by the Exa API