Legal Opinion

Schlenker v. Thorne, Neale & Co.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided November 18, 1949No. 10276PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GALSTON, District Judge.

This is a motion by the defendant “pursuant to Rule 12(a) (2) [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.]” for a more definite statement of matters alleged in certain designated paragraphs of the amended complaint; and pursuant to Rule 12(b) to dismiss the .third cause of action in the amended complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rules 8(c) and 9(a) are also invoked as to that part of the motion to dismiss, on the grounds respectively that the plaintiff has no capacity to sue and that the cause of action is barred…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Porter v. Warner Holding Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Bowles v. Glick Bros. Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
  3. Wisner v. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
  4. Armour & Co. v. BlindmanDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1947
  5. Johnson v. Frank Sheridan Jonas & SonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1946

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kuenzell v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1957
  2. Hernandez v. Arthur J. Gallagher Service Company, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API