Legal Opinion
Lehmann Trading Corporation v. J & H STOLOW, INC.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 27, 1960PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DIMOCK, District Judge.
Plaintiffs in this private antitrust action move under Rule 12(f), F.R.Civ.P., to strike certain defenses as “insufficient in law”. As enumerated in defendants' answer these defenses are:
“Second Defense
“13. The complaint fails to state a claim against any of the defendants upon which relief can be granted.
“Third Defense
“14. Plaintiffs have participated to such an extent in the activities complained of and have so enjoyed the benefits thereof, and have themselves so violated the antitrust laws, as to be disentitled from maintaining any of the alleged rights of action set…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Julius Nagler v. Admiral CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. Consolidated Gas Electric Light & Power Co. Of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1953
- Rosen v. Texas CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1958
- New York Credit Men's Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Bruno-New York, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1954
- Ferreira v. Sawayama-Kisen KKDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1959
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Salcer v. Envicon Equities Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Waldron v. British Petroleum Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1964
- Krisel v. DuranDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- Durham Industries, Inc. v. North River InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1979
- FDIC v. Eckert Seamans Cherin & MellottDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1990
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.