Legal Opinion
Ham v. Aetna Life Insurance
District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
Decided March 20, 1968No. Civ. No. 67-C-102PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*154ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDMENT TO ANSWER
DAUGHERTY, District Judge.
By way of Amendment to Answer filed in this ease, the Defendant has raised the defenses of res judicata and estoppel by judgment against Plaintiff’s claim.
In considering the Plaintiff’s Motion and Amended Motion, the Court notes that the essential functions of a motion to strike and a motion to dismiss are practically identical. The purpose of the motion to strike an answer is to test its legal sufficiency.1 The Court will therefore consider only the matters pleaded by the Defendant in his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wilkey v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1957
- Haco Drilling Company v. HammerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
- Harding v. TaylorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1954
3Cited by5 opinions
- Anderson v. AndersonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1979
- Seguros Tepeyac, S. A., Compania Mexicana De Seguros Generales v. James L. JerniganCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
- Anco Mfg. & Supply Company, Inc. v. SwankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
- Beights v. W. R. Grace & Co.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1975
- Hopson v. TriplettDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 1974