Legal Opinion

Sbicca-Del Mac, Inc. v. Milius Shoe Co.

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided December 12, 1940No. 459PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McLELLAN, District Judge.

This civil action came on for hearing upon five motions filed by the plaintiff. The first motion is to strike portions of *625the defendant’s answer. The second motion is to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim numbered 1. The third motion is to strike Paragraph 4 of the defendant’s first counterclaim. The fourth motion is to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim numbered 2, and the fifth to strike Paragraph 4 of this second counterclaim.

The action was brought originally in the state court, and was removed here by the defendant. The plaintiff seeks to recover certain…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. Bement v. National Harrow Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
  3. Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  4. Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
  5. Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Loughlin v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2002
  2. Burke v. Mesta Mach. Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. SchumacherDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1944
  4. City of Lake Worth v. First Nat. Bank in Palm BeachSupreme Court of Florida · 1957
  5. Klages v. CohenDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1947

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API