Legal Opinion
Phillips v. Pope & Talbot, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 16, 1952PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WEINFELD, District Judge.
Plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. to strike the fourth separate and complete defense of the answer as insufficient in law.
In substance, this defense alleges that the defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, with its principal office in that State; that it neither resides nor has its principal office in this district; and that the venue is improper under the Jones Act. For the purposes of this motion, it appears to be conceded that the defendant is doing business in this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Anderson-Friberg, Inc. v. Justin R. Clary & Son, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951
- Bagner v. Blidberg Rothchild Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1949
- Bounds v. Streckfus Steamers, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1950
- Mincy v. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1950
3Cited by13 opinions
- Thomas F. Drabik v. Honorable Thomas F. Murphy, United States District JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- Japan Gas Lighter Association v. Ronson Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1966
- Hoffman Motors Corporation v. Alfa Romeo SpADistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1965
- Wear-Ever Aluminum, Inc. v. SiposDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1960
- Edward Connolly v. Farrell Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1959
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.