Legal Opinion

Moviecolor Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided June 30, 1959PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HERLANDS, District Judge.

Whether plaintiff should be ordered to reply to the answer [F.R.Civ.P. rule 7(a), 28 U.S.C.A.] is the question posed by defendants’ motions. Rule 7(a) confers upon the court the discretionary power to "order a reply to an answer.”

The criteria for determining whether the court should grant or deny a motion to compel a reply have been described by commentators. Moore’s Federal Practice . (2d ed.) vol. 2, p. 1508; Note, 5 Fed. Rules Serv. 7a.222 (1942) at p. 803 ff.

The decisions represent not only pragmatic judgments based on the facts of the particular case but also…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Maschmeijer v. IngramDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1951
  2. Columbia Pictures Corporation v. RogersDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1949
  3. Cramer v. Aluminum Cooking Utensil Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1941
  4. Mason v. New York Cent. R.District Court, W.D. New York · 1949
  5. Bankers Bond & Mortgage Co. v. WitherowDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1940

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. (PC) Brown v. MarroquinDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
  2. (PC) Brown v. MarroquinDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
  3. (PC) Mills v. JonesDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  4. (PC) Zaiza v. ClarkDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  5. Pitz v. GonzalezDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API