Fleming v. Cleveland Union Terminals Co.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
JONES, District Judge.
The former ruling of the court briefly stated that the character of the charges made in the complaint called for more particularity. The degree of particularity was not, it is true, stated; but it was not intended that each instance of alleged violation or fraud be set forth in detail, but that concrete instances of wrongdoing should be set forth as facts supporting the charges. Thus, the defendant would be in position to respond and to prepare to meet the fact allegations. It is assumed that the plaintiff is in possession of facts supporting such instances, and no…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Walling v. Fairmont Creamery Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
- Fleming v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1941
- Fleming v. Southern Kraft Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- Flemming v. StillmanDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1941
- Card v. Elmer C. Breur, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1941