United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation
District Court, D. Massachusetts
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
- Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Brown v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Consolidated Rendering Co. v. VermontSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- 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
- Dean v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1958
- Mary G. Roebling v. Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the TreasuryCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1958
- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. ShieldsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- Liquor Control Commission v. AtlasUtah Supreme Court · 1952
- 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.