Legal Opinion

General Motors Corp. v. Kolodin

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided June 28, 1954No. Civ. 13702PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RAYFIEL, District Judge.

There are three motions. The first, by the plaintiff, is to strike from both the answer and amended answer paragraph numbered 1 thereof for the reason that they do not comply with Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and to strike from the amended answer the fourth defense and counterclaim and the paragraph numbered 3 of the defendant’s prayer for relief on the ground that they are based upon an after-acquired cause of action which, pursuant to Rule 13(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, may not be presented without the permission of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Texas Co. v. Borne Scrymser Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1933
  2. Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. General Bronze Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1937

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Index Fund, Inc. v. HagopianDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1981
  2. Aviation Materials, Inc. v. PinneyDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1975
  3. Mahler v. DrakeDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API