Thompson-Starret v. Chicago Housing Authority
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
HOLLY, District Judge.
Plaintiff sues for money due it for constructing a housing project for defendant, asserting that defendant owes money for work done under the contract and also for extras furnished at the request of the defendant. Defendant has filed its motion for a bill of particulars.
In my opinion a defendant is not entitled to a bill of particulars if the complaint is sufficiently explicit to enable the defendant to .know with what he is charged and to answer yes or no, to admit or deny, or to explain the charges made against him.
The forms set forth by the framers of the rules…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brinley v. LewisDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1939
- Martz v. AbbottDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1941
- Graziano v. Michigan Associated Express, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1940
3Cited by5 opinions
- Best Foods, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1943
- Boerstler v. American Medical Ass'nDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1954
- Bowles v. KarpDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1944
- Hodgson v. Orson E. Coe Pontiac, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1971
- Canuso v. City of Niagara FallsDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1944