Claudio v. Sinclair Refining Co.
126 F. Supp. 154, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2465
District Court, E.D. New York·Decided August 6, 1954·No. Civ. A. No. 14413·Published·Cited by 6 cases
Opinion
The cases submitted by the plaintiff are not in point. The recoveries therein were after trial. There is no authority for the relief sought, by way of a summary proceeding or motion, excepting where there is no genuine issue of fact, the Courts have entertained motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. See Rackus v. Moore-McCormack, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 185; Brady v. Waterman, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 629.
The motion is denied without prejudice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Claudio v. Sinclair Refining Co., 126 F. Supp. 154, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2465 (E.D.N.Y. 1954).
126 F. Supp. 154 (Claudio v. Sinclair Refining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Howard
452 S.W.3d 40 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Dean v. Fishing Co. of Alaska, Inc.
300 P.3d 815 (Washington Supreme Court, 2013)
Dean v. Fishing Co. of Alaska
Washington Supreme Court, 2013
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Rigby
96 So. 3d 1146 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Bloom v. Weeks Marine, Inc.
225 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (M.D. Florida, 2002)
Perry v. Allied Offshore Marine Corp.
618 So. 2d 1033 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)