Legal Opinion
Baltimore Aircoil Co. v. York Division, Borg-Warner Corp.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 30, 1967No. Civ. A. No. 9235PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
FOLLMER, District Judge.
Defendants have filed two motions to strike certain of plaintiff’s answers to defendants’ requests for admissions.1 It is claimed that the said answers are either sham, not responsive or equivocal.
Plaintiff contends that the motion to strike is improper. It appears that the courts are not unanimous as to the propriety of a motion to strike an answer to a request for admission. In 35B C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure § 766, p. 31, it is stated: “It has been held that the response to a request [for admission] is not subject to a motion to strike; but, on the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Dulansky v. Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 1950
- Momand v. Paramount Pictures Distributing Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941
- United States v. Watchmakers of Switzerland Information Center, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1959
- United States Plywood Corp. v. Hudson Lumber Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1954
- Water Hammer Arrester Corp. v. TowerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1949
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Continental Casualty Co. v. BrummelDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1986