Legal Opinion

American Mach. & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided May 10, 1948PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HULBERT, District Judge.

Defendant moves before answer under Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, 28 U.S.C.A., (1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted since there is no actual controversy between the parties; or in the alternative (2) to strike certain language from paragraph 9 of the complaint as immaterial and impertinent under Rule 12(f); and (3) to require a more definite • statement as to a certain portion of paragraph 9 of the complaint.

On August 12, 1947, 75 F.Supp. 421, a judge of this court, on the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Arnstein v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
  2. Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  3. Samara v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
  4. American MacHine & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
  5. American Machine & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1947

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. American Machine & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1948
  2. American MacHine & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API