Legal Opinion

United States v. New York Dock Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided August 2, 1951PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEIBELL, District Judge.

The defendants move for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. to dismiss all three causes of action alleged in a complaint of plaintiff on the grounds (1) that the United States of America -is not the proper party plaintiff and (2) that all three-claims are barred by the New York State statute of limitations.

The pertinent underlying facts are as follows: In late August or early September 1944 the United States Commercial Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which in turn is wholly…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. United States v. SummerlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Federal Housing Administration, Region No. 4 v. BurrSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. Guaranty Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  4. Board of Comm'rs of Jackson Cty. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. Techno Fund, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1967
  2. United States v. Pall CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1973
  3. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Tuolumne Gold Dredging Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1953
  4. United States v. Utica Meat Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1955
  5. United States v. TambascoDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1956

2 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