Jerome v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
CAFFEY, District Judge.
These are motions (1) by defendant to have plaintiff separately state and number the claims alleged in paragraphs 25 to 39 (called herein the second cause of action) of the amended complaint if more than one claim is attempted to be stated therein; (2) by defendant (in its brief and discussed by both counsel) to dismiss a claim of unfair competition if one be stated in the second cause of action; and (3) by plaintiff to compel defendant to answer questions asked in taking a deposition.
Solution of the problem presented requires resort to Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238, 53…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hurn v. OurslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- International News Service v. Associated PressSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Zalkind v. ScheinmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Silverman v. Sunrise Pictures Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Leader Press, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Orgel v. Clark Boardman Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956
- Ful-Vue Sales Co. v. American Optical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951
- Sensytrol Corp. v. Radio Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1955