Legal Opinion
Dulberg v. Mock
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 22, 1956PublishedCited by 57 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDesmond, J.
We review the dismissal, for alleged insufficiency of content, of all five of the causes of action pleaded in this amended complaint. Plaintiff is a layman acting for himself. Defendants are patent attorneys. The pleading is inartistically drawn and is indefinite in places. However, our inquiry is as to whether it states in some recognizable form any cause of action known to our law. The applicable rules are those of Condon v. Associated Hosp. Service (287 N. Y. 411, 414): the complaint must stand 441 If in any aspect upon the facts stated the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery ’ * * * The…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Condon v. Associated Hospital ServiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Vooth v. . McEachenNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Pitcher v. SuttonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Byrnes v. PalmerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- Winter v. . American Aniline Products, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- 219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Wegman v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
- Non-Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Nastasi v. NastasiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Joan Hansen & Co. v. Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.