Legal Opinion

United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided March 3, 1948No. Civil Action 7198PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WYZANSKI, District Judge.

There are before me defendant’s motion for a more definite statement and for a bill of particulars and plaintiff’s motion; as amended, for production of documents.

I deny in toto defendant’s motion for a more definite statement and for a bill of particulars. My consistent practice in civil cases has been narrowly to restrict the granting of motions for a more definite statement and for bills of particulars. Like the majority of courts whose opinions are cited in the report prepared by the Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, I have viewed Rule 12(e), Federal…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. United States v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  3. Brown v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  4. Consolidated Rendering Co. v. VermontSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  5. United States v. United States Alkali Export Ass'n, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1946

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Dean v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Mary G. Roebling v. Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the TreasuryCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1958
  3. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. ShieldsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
  4. Liquor Control Commission v. AtlasUtah Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Houdry Process Corp. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1959

9 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